In fairness, much like my own, Phil’s initial comments on this thread are polite and largely inconsequential really. In many respects there was no need for Foggy (or anyone else) to justify themselves or offer a counter-argument.
In offering a counter-argument and possibly bevoming a bit defensive (perhaps understandably so), the situation has then developed into something it really should never have been.
As has already been said, there’s a bit of a pack mentality that has developed in this thread (and while people may feel justified) some of it feels like bullying to me and I can appreciate why Phil’s heckles have been raised as a result.
Looking back, I think it would be reasonable to say that it wasn’t just Phil’s fault that this developed the way that it has. There was a veiled threat of violence towards Phil, the tiny criticism (which was counterbalanced with plenty of praise) wasn’t received very well and as ever in here the pack go about isolating and cornering individuals for simply not quite conforming to the latest ‘group-think’.
I think the biggest lesson for me is simply don’t bother asking for feedback if you only want to hear positive stuff.
The feedback Phil gave was fairly received by Foggy, and both were quite cordial to each other, but Phil then said to another poster that there were several inaccuracies. Foggy was then trying to get Phil to clarify this feedback. There was a big back and forth of Foggy trying to get Phil to say what the inaccuracies were, Phil then danced around the gardens not specifying any, he just said "things about Huds and Derby".
Also at one point, Phil also announced he had enough with the thread, and stopped posting, and the whole thread had moved on. Only for him to come in days later, not replying to anyone, and restart the whole argument again basically repeating his "this book was inaccurate" line. Then he finally did specify one 'inaccuracy' and it wasn't an inaccuracy at all.
I think the lesson is, if you're going to give feedback, be constructive and keep it within the realms of reality. Otherwise it's useless, and isn't feedback at all, just pointless nitpicking and sniping. Instead of saying "this book is inaccurate because the bits I think are important aren't in it", you could say "I wish the book contained more details on x,y,z". By just saying it's inaccurate and then being vague about what's inaccurate, you're not offering the author any useful feedback. Any author interested in useful feedback would press that person to actually specify what they're referring to. There's a difference between offering a counter argument, and asking someone to clarify their comments.
Also the "don't bother asking for feedback" line is a bit much. It was a thread started for discussion of the book. Whilst feedback can be part of that, it was never actually specified or asked for in the original post. My thoughts when opening the thread was it would revolve around stories raised in the book, rather than a thread of book reviews, good or bad. Also it suggests he can't handle feedback, which I think he clearly can, he wasn't just offering counter arguments, he's given his thoughts on why he's written his book this way, he's not saying it's the definitive best way, but why it made sense for him to do so.
I thought your discussion with Foggy was much more constructive and could see why he wrote about NAPM the way he did, but also why you take issue with it given your experience. I thought that was a pretty fair back and forth.