Just received a nice nastygram of a legal nature from Debbie Schlussel who apparently didn’t much like the trademark invective of the Rott in this post, more specifically a few choice insults that she, due to their sexual nature, deemed defamatory. Right.
Now, whether said statements really were defamatory or not I’ll leave up to you to decide, but I have absolutely neither the time nor the inclination to quibble back and forth with thin-skinned Debbie, so the phrases in question have been edited out, as per her wishes, and I assure you that I have no reason to believe that Ms. Schlussel’s medical status in questionable, nor do I believe that the nature of her employment is due to factors of an inappropriate nature. It would be silly to even think so, something that I certainly should think obvious. The intent was to insult, nothing more, or more accurately to return an insult, since I found her column insulting the country of my birth highly offensive. Her statement that Denmark, whose soldiers have been fighting and dying alongside our brave soldiers since the beginning of the conflict, was “hardly a staunch supporter of the War on Terror” did, indeed, hurt and anger me. What’s good for the goose…
To further clarify, so as to leave no doubt that this is a specific and full retraction, in case anybody mistakenly took any of the now deleted statements for anything other than what they were, which was, as mentioned above, an insult to return an insult. Or, if you prefer, an opinion such as is often expressed on an opinion website such as a blog. Nevertheless, for the record:
I do NOT claim that Ms. Schlussel is, in fact, “one syphilitic little ignorant slut”.
Nor do I claim that Ms. Schlussel does, in fact, “get paid to do what she does” because “she gives good head”.
I never did make those claims, although the statements certainly appeared as hyperbolic invective and as an opinion (and were then promptly deleted per Ms. Schlussel’s wishes as a show of good faith). But that is very far indeed from suggesting that they in any way constituted fact, facts that I do not possess and therefore cannot logically claim as facts, which I didn’t.
Just as I am not offering my expert and objective evaluation of somebody’s actual state of mental health when I call him or her an “idiot.”
Just to be clear, in case anybody really took them to mean anything but what they were. If you did, you are wrong, and the statements have been deleted to avoid confusion. They were not posted as factual claims, and if they had been, which they weren’t, they would be factually incorrect to the best of my knowledge.
The actual points of the post remain the same, however.
But the naughty phrases are gone.