Enough with any self-righteous duplicity, especially if it's perfumed with false magnaminity.
If you've seriouslly (totally honest, and up front) struggled with how how to implement "the Paradigm" since you've come on board with CMAA, you have doubtless had to wrestle with the contingencies and implications that attend the paradigm.
That is how and why we can easily defend both past efforts (Burgess Palmer et al) and the emergent gamechangers such as SCG//SEP/BFW/V2Hymnal/OZ Psalter, etc., that have a direct association and distinct CMAA imprimatur from their origins. That, and a few other approaches (Tietze, Psallite, Kathy's strophic Propers, lectionary and office hymns, etc.) get a bit of a pass critically based upon their proximity to the paradigm.
However, if we are to remain intellectually, and thereby, morally honest in the public square, we would have to ultimately acknowlege that all this "brick by brick" baby steps stuff isn't terminal. If we are to be true to our innermost selves, as I recall was the thrust of a Dr. Schaefer article not too long ago, we have to make the choice to make an ultimate decision about which of the forms of the rite we will attend and what music we will serve that rite with as we go about our vocations.
Where am I going with this? Well, as the "Old Biddy" said at Cafe, I'm trying not to offend.
But the roasting of Ambrosetti's "product," though not nearly as close to the paradigm as SEP or the V2 Hymnal, reflects a clear and present hypocrisy among our own. This observation is not meant to defend SAH or any other product, but we cannot hail the V2 and all that JMO, FNJ, AB and CHG are marketing as "not product" or conventional by comparison to the Big Three or anybody else with something to sell. And that is not an indictment of CMAA affiliated publications as being "equiivilent" to other product. They're not.
But we can ill afford to make philosophical distinctions that indemnify not-CMAA endorsed product from our own and expect to skate through moral scrutiny unscathed.
I'm sorry, revoke my priviliges, take my party card, whatever....but we have some serious introspection to consider before we start breaking glass houses.

I think people are being way too complicated here. At our particular moment in history, there is no excuse for abdicating the responsibility for thinking seriously and critically about these things. At the same time, there's no reason criticism has to be either nasty or partisan. All of which is perfectly obvious and shouldn't have to be said again and again.

@dhrabbit

lol, yea really, I would love for a few of debates to take place face to face, lots of fun.

Have any of you guys ever been online? In terms of vitriol, this ain't nothin'. (Not that it's excusable, but there isn't all that much questionable speech and what there is is pretty easy to ignore.) Taking offense is always an occasion of pride because it is a wasted opportunity for humility.

I would look forward to the responses of the publisher, who did appear to have some solid starting principles, to the actual criticisms listed throughout this thread. Specifically:

benedictgal:
http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/comment/73851#Comment_73851

Ben Yanke:
http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/comment/73855#Comment_73855

CharlesW:
http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/comment/73858#Comment_73858

Kevin in Kentucky:
http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/comment/73923#Comment_73923

Rereading these, not a single one of these choice comments --- immediately after which Mr. Ambrosetti replied again --- so much as raised its voice. Each was frustrated, to be sure, to some degree or another but none were hatefully so. I can't blame Mr. Ambrosetti for his frustration, either ---

see Chonak's comment
http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/comment/73925#Comment_73925

--- but I don't think anyone can blame these cream comments for the tone of their criticism.

The problem is that attempts to be "good" are often so bossy and self-righteous, or, alternatively, whiney, that they are "bad," in the sense of keeping the conversation eddying around instead of being mission-focused.

(This comment was the "bossy" kind.)

Yes... It is a shame we cannot see each other and talk face to face. A lot is lost, especially in the passionate (compassionate) expression of what is said and how it is received. I say we go for a live video blog.

... but the headache is worth the beauty if you can handle it.

There's no doubt that the sounds of a pipe organ overrides anything coming from a synthesizer or P&W band. Unfortunately, for many of us, we don not have the luxury of parish budgets that allow for such things. So, yes, while I would prefer an organist who can make an organ sing and dance, I have to be contented with a synthesizer, that, nonetheless, can sing like the angels with the right person playing!