In the blogosphere, how many care about facts when it is more fun, easier and "self-satisfying" to create realities from our perceptions. And many people cannot distinguish the two.
Since your statement is so vague, I wonder what exactly you're disagreeing with him over. Eldar Murtazin has a nice piece on the history of the iPhone that I read just the other day that backs up his comment. http://www.mobile-review.com/article-en.shtml
A review is a perspective of what transpired, not necessarily the facts; just like historians bring their perspective in interpreting historical events. There is a book entitled "The Winner Names the Age". The essence is that what we know as the truth of the past, or that which prevails is the perspective (via historians) of the "winners", not the vanquished.
That aside, I agree that it is difficult to counter a blanket rejection of one's proposition when the critic does not offer any explanation. Basically, the other party (the critic) places the onus on you to "prove" your propositions to be incorrect. But, this is very difficult to do because we sincerely believe in what we perceived to be the truth, and I hope the reason why each is impassioned to share their views here.
It is the role of propagandists to obfuscate facts, and attempt to promote their perception to be the alternative for what is factual and real.