Yes, I made too many generalisations in my reply.

I found that last article very interesting. I do feel as though people argue over definitions (which he has a chapter on, arguing for his definition). But, I see he has not combatted a great deal of the modern debate over that-which-is-called 'Free Will'.

I think he has made a very strong case against the idea of punishment for punishment's sake (against those that do 'wrong') that I don't see any future conception of 'Free Will' resurrecting. This is what I have taken from the book, which I think is what it does brilliantly, but I do see he unhelpfully conflates definitions. The main thing that everyone I know who has read the book has taken, is the idea that people aren't the sole causes of their evil acts, and we can still act morally following this truth. That's the 'Free Will' that has been demolished in my mind, which is why I defend his book. It feels now as though he's not straw-manned the argument, as much as called it the wrong thing, so I'll go revise my definitions. I do like the book a lot, though. :)