Sure you're not slipping down a slope there? In the first case he failed to mention he was given something to review for free by the company. The second makes the case that he wrote positively about things he had written manuals for.
I am still failing to grasp your logic. How does this serve as evidence?
The logic, such as it is, goes something like: Pogue once did a bad thing, therefore he is a bad person, therefore he is presumed guilty of all future bad things.
I am still failing to grasp your logic. How does this serve as evidence?