Oh, we watch everything.
Generally speaking, re-printing e-mails from anyone without permission is impolite. In this case even a light gag will get some people's backs up - as it has here. God knows there's enough justified reasons for people to hate us without giving some more. But no use crying over spilled milk.
We try to be polite to everyone who takes the time to review PG. As is only natural, we've got opinions on all reviews, but seeing the long history of people who've worked as critics and turned into the most vocal critic bashers, we'd rather avoid that. Mostly, we just smile at bad reviews.
In this case, "It's about a dude that bangs a skank then cannot man up and get over it" made us smile. Why wouldn't it? It's a pretty funny line. I almost twittered it as my favourite one line description of PG2.2, but decided against it.
(As some of the twitter readers would almost certainly start mocking the person for saying so, and I'd hate someone to turn up here to mock him. That's not why I'd want to twitter it, y'know? Risking setting an internet lynch mob isn't the classy thing to do.)
In your case, we smiled at the comparison to Alan Moore. Comparisons - even negative ones - to Alan Moore don't really annoy writers. Really, thanks for your time and sorry it didn't work for you.
I did read it. Good to see someone actually wrestling with themselves over what they actually made of the thing. It's the sort of review where I wouldn't be comfortable talking about now. As in, I'd be interested to see if you think some of the faults are faults when you reach the end of the series.
(Some of the stuff certainly won't change, admittedly. We're never going to explain the magic much more than it is now, just hope that people eventually twig what we're trying to do.
It's the issue I'd have probably suggested for people to do such a thing, so great to see someone do a review group on an issue of PG2.2. Thanks for taking the time to read the bally thing.