A polemic is defined as controversial argument against a prevailing doctrine (Webster, 1989). By definition, it is unbalanced since it sets out to be deliberately controversial and to selectively use information to bolster its particular position. find it ironic that More accuses an extensive cohort of of bias, and responds by offering a determinedly one-sided perspective to attack them. He fails to acknowledge merits of perspectives offered by conventional mainstream literature which he attacks. Essentially, he is hoisted by his own petard. My intent in this commentary is to review the rest of story. terms fraud and deceit in polemic's title have no place in a leading scientific journal. Indeed, More's use of them in this paper is both fraudulent and deceitful because he states, I do not doubt integrity or good intentions of those who propound [the concepts he attacks]. paper does not accuse individuals of engaging in deliberately false or misleading actions. Rather, discussion revolves around what More perceives to be inadvertent outcomes that arise when people of integrity misapply concepts, inaccurately implement them, or implement them legitimately in inappropriate contexts. Nowhere in manuscript does More allege fraud or deceit. This type of pseudo-sensationalistic headline designed to grab reader's attention while misrepresenting article's contents belongs in tabloid press, not in a scientific journal. More's misrepresentation in title of content of paper is indicative of what follows. polemic is replete with generalizations and noticeably devoid of criticism of specific contributions. To criticize in abstract, without citing examples of specific failings in empirical literature which constitutes basis of mainstream scientific literature serves only to arouse suspicion about legitimacy of generalizations being made. concur that there are occasions when researchers provide 'products' that please agencies. goal of such is to legitimize a position rather than being predicated on a search for truth. As one commentator observed, The fees for such studies are like religious tithes paid to a priest to come and bless some endeavor (Curtis, 1993, p. 7). However, there is a defense mechanism built into system. idea that community is a pliant, coherent entity of hired prize fighters, uniformedly committed to providing 'products' that please agencies is absurd. response to such pseudo-science is likely to be an outcry from that large segment of community which is offended by what they perceive to be unethical work. An example of this with which have had substantial personal involvement as a critic is economic impact which has been undertaken by big name consultancy firms, commissioned by supporters of major league sports franchises to justify massive public subsidy of facilities for these wealthy owners. [In 2003 dollars, capital cost of facilities used by 125 teams in four major leagues was almost $24 billion of which public sector contributed $16 billion]. mischievous, deliberately misleading research promulgated by these studies to justify public investment has been subjected to sustained, aggressive attack by a highly visible segment of academic community, so legitimacy of these consultants' reports is now widely discredited even in popular press. If mischievous research of this nature was prevalent in parks and recreation literature as More alleges, then precedent suggests a counter body of real would emerge empirically discrediting findings. More is unable to cite such a literature in his paper which find to be confirmatory evidence indicating The Emperor has no clothes. More's tirade in his opening paragraph alleging recent emergence of elitism is puzzling. …