Here is how the "Review" reads: Kindle Fire Review
From Project Gutenberg, the first producer of free ebooks.
A Review of the Kindle Fire by our webmaster and principal developer. Summary *Buy a Nexus 7 instead and install the Kindle app or stay with the Kindle 3. * To summarize, 1. It's from Project Gutenberg and therefore represents PG's official position. 2. It's PG's review by our webmaster, not his review. 3. We endorse the Google Nexus 7. ... and then it proceeds to thoroughly trash the Kindle Fire entirely based on it's purported advertising policy (which is inaccurately represented in the "Review"). And explicitly and officially recommends by Google's product (wihout mentioning Google.) If this in fact truly represents PG's point of view, or the view of it's principal developer, I can imagine what kind of product or service they can expect to get from PG for my Kindle Fire. So much for PG's impartiality and integrity. The alternative scenarios I can think of are: 1. The site has been hacked. But how could that be, if it's still up? 2. Marcel, or someone else, has misrepresented their authority to speak on behalf of the Corporation. (And why is the attribution to the webmsster and principle developer, without mentioning who that is? Except to reinforce that this is published on PG's authority, and not Marcel's authority.) 3. The PG site url has been hijacked, or actually belongs to some US affiliate of PG that doesn't represent PGLAF. 3. PG is not who I thought they were. Don Kretz