Received your kind email. I’m afraid I’ve concluded your concerns are unfounded, and will carry on as before. Given that you “know where I live” I presume if you truly felt I had defamed you with my post I would have received a letter on solicitor’s letterhead instead of via a web form. Perhaps your intention was to imply a visit by you to me with a baseball bat, as per your handling of a cyclist described in your post 48 Hours of Biking Hell: A Diary of Cycling Insanity in Vancouver–Led by Suzanne Anton, but I am a charitable sort and tend to think you have gained wisdom since then.
I’m afraid you may be premature in your conclusions as to my employer, but I’m genuinely puzzled how you think this organization would be concerned about the blogging activities of an employee off-hours, especially given that said organization is founded on the principles of free speech.
I’ve been blogging, off and on, for 10 years or more. If I’m not mistaken in that time I’ve written precisely two posts about you. Thus I’m genuinely curious as to why you would feel such visceral concern. I’m just not that in to you.
As a blogger, you have your strengths. Your past political connections have allowed you to turn those relationships into sources, and you have clearly been leaked information that is of genuine public interest. But you are not above criticism. Columnists regularly receive criticism via “Letters to the Editor” and through rebuttal pieces in other columns and indeed other publications. There’s nothing strange in that, and it translates to the blogging world as well.
So, in summary, I will carry on as before. If you write something that I feel the need to comment on, I will. If you don’t, I won’t.
P.S. I blog under a pseudonym because, alas, I have received threats on my person and employment in years past. I know…it’s hard to believe that people could get so upset over blog postings they would feel the need to lash out!