Anyone who has read the book with any care whatsoever will understand these characterizations as either sloppy or malicious. Taking them one by one:

In no way do I indicate that I have given up on the Internet. With all of my concerns, I am still a huge fan, as I make clear throughout the book and by inviting electronic correspondence.

My concerns about electronic democracy are considerably more complex than your summary, and not nearly as extreme. Mostly, I argue against the specter of direct democracy. Are you arguing for it?

Not only is my call for limited government action regarding the Net considerably more subdued and specific than your cartoonish characterization. I also go out of my way to warn against too-much-government intrusion, while you imply that I do exactly the opposite.

Then, if I read you correctly, you go out of your way to mention your point of view that you don't think we should rush into wiring the schools. What you entirely omit is that this is also an argument in my book.

Two other statements of yours (in a review of less than 800 words) warrant attention:

"As for the author's notion that 'cyberspace is Republican,' he should take a look at the Pew Research Center's recent survey on the subject. It shows that the Internet is slightly more Republican than Democrat."

Mr. Harper: If anyone else on the planet reads my entire chapter 16 and comes away thinking that what I meant is that cyberspace is overwhelmingly populated by Republicans, ask that person to give me a call. My point is so utterly different from the one that you imply, I have to wonder if you read the chapter yourself.

You also write: "The author preaches that niches are bad."

Please, please, please tell me that you didn't write the last half of your review by skimming my table of contents (I have a chapter entitled "De-nichify"). It's true that I do explore some of the problems of nichification in my book. I also explicitly discuss the many benefits of niches, concluding with the sentence: "What marketers call 'nichification' is, in fact, an important part of our improving quality of life."

In your review, you insinuate that I am a bad journalist. I spend hours working to make my sentences into fair characterizations of the people and events and ideas I am describing. I work very hard to avoid unfair overstatements. Can you re-read your review and make the same claim? Of the dozens of reviews of my book that I have come across, yours wasn't the absolute sloppiest. But I beg you to be more careful and thoughtful in future book reviews. It matters, maybe more than you realize.

David Shenk