Stardate 20030805.1224

(Captain's log): Brent writes:

I was a bit disappointed in the give and take so far. Your correspondant brought up valid points, and instead of discussing it logically, you blew him off. Your commentary regarding the exchange was pretty unsatisfactory as well.

By all means, don't write fluff, but if you write something that your readers wish to debate, have the moral fiber to either back up your convictions with reasoned, logical discussion, and maybe even have the courage to admit error if someone brings to light information you had not considered.

What I objected to was his attempt to claim that I should not even have written about the subject at all because in so doing I somehow discredited myself, and therefore discredited him because he'd been standing up for me and had been using references to some of my more serious articles in argments with leftist friends.

What I read in his original letter was this:

1. You are wrong factually.
2. You did not look good because of what you wrote.
3. I agree with you on other more substantive issues.
4. You have now given those who disagree with us ammunition to shoot you down.
5. You're letting down the team; I'm being harmed politically, so you owe it to me to not write that kind of thing.

It may well be that I was factually wrong. But that particular article wasn't supposed to be serious; it was intended to be humorous (and nasty). Frankly, I don't really care whether my characterization of the V-Rod was accurate or not; it wasn't that kind of piece, which means that his factual objections ultimately were irrelevant.

What set me off was his presumption that somehow I had an obligation to not soil my reputation by writing that kind of post. There seemed to be some sort of presumption that I had become iconic, and therefore other people had a stake in my reputation, and that I owed it to them to not damage the icon. I categorically refuse to acknowledge any such obligation, and I consider it outrageous and presumptious for anyone to suggest such a thing.

With respect to admitting error, I do that all the time. I do it routinely. I don't think it's a big deal, so I don't wear sackcloth and ashes when I do so, which is why some who are not regular readers may not notice.

I also routinely link to people on other sites who have been critical of me. When I discover that someone else has posted a response to something I've written, I will usually add a link back to it if I think they made a substantive point. But it doesn't matter to me whether they're supporting me or disagreeing with me. (I don't do this invariably. Sometimes there are such posts and I never learn of them. Some days I just get lazy or feel overwhelmed. There are also people who do this not really because they actually have something to say, but simply as a form of link-whoring, and I don't want to reward that.)

But almost always when I include such a link, to a supporter or a critic or to someone with more info, I don't describe or summarize what they say. I just say, "Thus-and-so comments." Therefore, if you're not in the habit of following those links, you may not realize just how much criticism I actually do link to.

Finally, this: I think most long-term readers will find it a bit comical that you are advising me to "back up my convictions with reasoned, logical discussion". Nope, none of that ever appears on this site...