For much too long the description of syntactic phenomena has been suffering from prior, axiomatically given assumptions within particular syntactic theories. With the review of my book in this journal we now have proof that these assumptions may also seriously distort the view of a book which indeed does not religiously follow within the footsteps of any of these theories. In this brief note I shall try to set the record straight with regard to some of the worst distortions. The rest is left to the reader of my book and of the review, who I trust will be able to judge for him/herself, in particular with regard to the tone and style of the review.