Pargeter and colleagues do not escape the dangers inherent in the exercise they embark on. The first is that of creating a straw man argument in which one exaggerates and misinterprets what was said in the article being criticised. The second is that of using your time to look at the speck of dust in your brother's eye instead of paying attention to the plank in your own. The third, if you are lucky enough to find a sympathetic journal, is to rehash the same criticism over and over in multiple articles, changing the tone from very moderate (Mitchell 2012) to more aggressive (Pargeter 2014), which inevitably pushes your opponents and any sensible reader to wonder about your motivations.