Sometimes i wonder whether to feed the troll or not.
Any publicity he gets is just going to result in more hits to his site, more ad revenue, link-click-purchases and whatnot.
Sometimes I wonder if he's like a radio shock-jock, the ones who spout such inflammatory (generally ignorant, sexist, and racist, whatever, we've got one in Australia called Kyle, there's a Brit called Russel, although they're far from the worst), the public get offended, create an uproar, the shock-jock apologises and backpedals, but all that happens is that he gets more exposure and ratings and listeners and ad revenue.
I see a lot of parallels between that and the site-marketing techniques of mr rockhammer.
But then, I did read that entire review end to end. Maybe it's the way I read it, but it doesn't sound like the camera comes off sounding bad. He, on the other hand, does. Half of that long review could have been replaced with the text "I didn't bother to read even a quarter of the manual, or spend more than 5 minutes trying, so i'm going to blame the camera, the sooner I get this review out the sooner i get my ad revenue so this is all you get."
Still, it's not the worst i've read. I read an article from a Medium Format Film shooter, trying out digital for the first time, there was a line like "I tried zooming and you have to press a button on the back and it's hard to get precisely where you want it". Uh, yeah, compare manual-focus 6x6 film and prime-lenses to a crappy P&S digital. Didn't put me off wanting an MF film setup, but if anything i just lost a bit of respect for the reviewer...