[Use an online one; very handy.]

I’m sure you’ll understand why I can’t — or at least won’t — go back and erase the parts of my blog post which offended. That would be the functional equivalent of a lie, an attempt to cover up something I did rather than either stand by it or renounce/denounce it. Better to simply take any lumps I have coming, analyze what led to it all (which I do, in an update at the bottom of the post) and move on with the honest intention of resolving the underlying problem.

Mr. Klaus is well-acquainted with the English language; it was reasonable for him to assume that the use of the word “smut” indicated content of a misogynist or pornographic character. Thank you for clarifying that that was not the case.

Bottom line: On the one hand, Ms. Mercer’s claim that RRND/FND does not cover her work is facially true in that it’s been some time since her columns have shown up there — something I intend to remedy.

Her implicit claim that that dearth of coverage has something to do with our ideological or personal disagreements, however, is incorrect. Not only do I cover content I disagree with (a description which applies to some, but by no means all, of Ms. Mercer’s writings), even if written by authors I personally dislike (and I don’t dislike Ms. Mercer), I seek out such content to cover and prefer well-written and well-argued samples of it (Ms. Mercer delivers on both points).

Best regards,
Tom Knapp

[Tom, I’m a good judge of character. The KNAPPSTER may be cantankerous, but he is not cultish or intellectually incurious. I instinctually—and, I believe, correctly—put-down my absence from “Rational Review” for 2-3 years to other editors: “the women folk, and here I include women with the YY chromosomal makeup.”–IM]

I don’t like Tom Knapp, for plenty of personal reasons, but to call him a “purveyor of smut” is, so far as I am aware, ridiculous. If you’re going to toss a personal insult his way, either please document it so readers may make their own judgments as to the smuttiness contained therein, or please make your insults fact-based.

[Clearly this writer has a limited knowledge of the nuances of the English language. Nor any particular need to find out before banging off an irate email. Smut: “A smudge made by soot, smoke, or dirt.” It fits perfectly with Knapp’s note to me, however, contrary to this high-and-mighty demand, I generally don’t publish personal missives. In this instance, no good will come of it. But the Knapp note indeed “blackened” and “smudged” me.–IM]

I realize that this was not the subject of your original post; however, my response was prompted by your recent Update.

[Ms. Grant is a scientist at the top of her game. She is also a rational, clear thinker. Her shared experiences are invaluable.–IM]

I don’t believe that Ricci intended for the courts to recognize that “…all men are NOT created equal…”, I think his point is that all men are not created IDENTICAL. Otherwise an excellent article.