The most negative book review in our area?

I always thought that it would take a lot to unseat Peterson's review of Shedinger as the most negative book review known in our area ("Reading this book fills one with dismay and despair. It is shocking that a work which does not rise to the level of a master's thesis should be approved as a doctoral dissertation; how it found its way into print is unfathomable" etc.).  After reading Paul Foster's review of Bartosz Adamczewski, Q or Not Q? The So-Called Triple, Double and Single Traditions in the Synoptic Gospels (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2010), I am beginning to wonder whether this one now wins the prize and betters Peterson.

It appears in Expository Times 122/4 (2010): 177-80 (only available to those with subscriptions or with institutional inscriptions).  A couple of quotations will give an idea of the flavour:

Unfortunately, while initial hopes may have been high for the project this book seeks to undertake, the outcome is not only disappointing, it is quite frankly bizarre, idiosyncratic, self-indulgent, unconvincing, lacking in academic judgment, implausible at every turn, methodologically flawed throughout, and poorly written. It demonstrates no critical awareness of the handling of sources, resorts to ad hominem presentations of the positions of various scholars, and cobbles together the most implausible array of historical interpretations. This unsurprisingly results in what may be the most worthless attempt to find a fresh solution to the synoptic problem in recent years. What is truly disheartening about this amateurish and unscholarly book is that because it is the only monograph-length defense of Matthean posteriority, it may be viewed as the major presentation of that theory.

The whole review continues in much the same vein.  Of particular note is the conclusion:

Reading this work one does not know whether to roll around with laughter, or to weep with genuine pain. For this reviewer it is the second of those responses that was more prevalent throughout this book. How could a supposedly academic book, published by Peter Lang, a reputable scholarly publishing house, ever see the light of day? There has been a serious deficiency in quality control. This book shows no connection with, or appreciation of any form of mainstream scholarship on the synoptic problem. Opposing views are misrepresented and never sympathetically handled, even though they have far more cogency than the ideas expressed here. The approach is devoid of rigorous analysis of texts, but characterized by unfounded assertions and claims that the most implausible readings are self-evident. Adamczewski has the distinction of producing a book that makes Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code look like carefully researched and highly rigorous historiography.

I wish that Paul would stop beating around the bush and tell us what he really thinks.