The actual behaviour of the probability of a Type I error under assumption violation is quite complex, depending upon a wide variety of interacting factors. Yet allegations of robustness tend to ignore its highly particularistic nature and neglect to mention important qualifying conditions. The result is often a vast overgeneralization which nevertheless is difficult to refute since a standard quantitative definition of what constitutes robustness does not exist. Yet under any halfway reasonable quantitative definition, many of the most prevalent claims of robustness would be demonstrably false. Therefore robustness is a highly questionable concept.