I give up Jim. You can't be clear about what you mean. If you want someone to answer for a point they made please refer back to when they made that point and if quoting it use the exact words and don't paraphrase them using you own interpretation/misinterpration of what they said.

I think it's a good book. It is not written in an academic style - I don't think it should be - but it is precise and clearly set out. There is a good separation of raw material and interpretation. Previous work is acknowleged. Is anything significant missing from the bibliography and is there anything in the bibliography that is not referred to in the text?