My response:
“So this is a hit piece[!]”
After, presumably, realizing that that was all I was going to say, he came back with:
“I have attempted to rectify the situation between us, I really don’t know how we will communicate if you do not read all of what I have written. I am assuming that [you] are reading some of what I write, and we can go from there, however, without you telling me, I will have no way of knowing how much of what I wrote you read.”
I replied that I had read only his first four words:
“You called my article a ‘hit piece.’ You said, ‘Hit pieces, like this…’ Honorable people do not write hit pieces. To say I wrote a ‘hit piece,’ is to attack my character. The instant I am attacked I will stop reading. If I inadvertently read more, I try to suppress what I read, no matter how nice what comes after an attack might seem to be. What can what comes after an attack actually mean?
“The accusation that I wrote a hit piece must be addressed. Any responses to what I wrote cannot contain implications that challenge my character.
[Refers to an earlier attempt at conversation:] “You said you didn’t even understand what ad hominem was, when it clearly meant from the context, character assassination. You could have googled it. Instead of addressing my complaint you said you didn’t understand what I was talking about. What am I to make of that?
“Address my complaint. Understand that by not addressing it, I still stand as accused of writing a hit piece. That is, of doing a dishonorable thing!”
He later replied with a true apology. I was and am truly grateful!
Leave a Reply