A Response to Denil (2024)

Clarity of concepts and an honest respect for ideas and evidence are the hallmarks, in an ideal world, of meaningful and productive intellectual debate. In practice, however, rhetoric becomes heated and standards slip. At times, argumentation can cross into unethical distortion and fabrication. This is, unfortunately, the case with Mark Denil’s (2024) response to my critique (Edney 2022) of his essay seeking to define the map/non-map boundary (Denil 2022).