This past Sunday, November 30th, I emailed the first edition of a new weekly newsletter, Dean Rotbart's News & Comment.  The email was addressed primarily to readers who had sent me comments in response to my most recent column in the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles.

I didn't just send the new e-letter to those who liked what I had to say in the Jewish Journal.  I sent it, too, to my critics.  Using the Constant Contact newsletter service, those who wanted to be dropped from my subscriber list could do so easily.  Amazingly, given how many critics I attracted, relatively few have canned me thus far.

One reader did not just cut me off.  She (could be a he) offered me a chance at redemption.  Here is our exchange that took place over the past 12 hours:

Reader:  It is difficult to use normal, rationale thinking to understand what your motives are or why you would want to write such negative and hateful propositions.  If your intention is to be provocative, you manage to do that.  If your intention is to educate, you fail.  Why not use your curiosity and desire to write for a higher purpose.  In my opinion, you unfortunately are placed on the same level as Limbaugh and Co.  Why not be taken seriously and make a real contribution?  One thing you might want to try is to present honest news.  Unless you elevate yourself to that level of journalism, please do not send me any more of your emails.
 
Thank you.

Me:  I want you to know that I appreciate the tone you have taken.  In many ways, I wrote my column and sent out my newsletter in the hopes of creating a dialogue with people who don't share my point of view. Note that I said having 'a dialogue', not changing their minds.

I regret that you no longer wish to receive my email letter.  I'm open to hearing from you and learning from you, but I would like the communications to be two-way.

I do believe my motives are not a mystery and my rationale is clear-headed.  I also contest your description of what I do as hateful.  I hate only one thing: those who will kill innocents in the name of religion or for any other irrational reason.

I don't know your background.  I grew up drenched in the holocaust.  My father survived Auschwitz, his parents and entire family did not.  All the kids in my neighborhood were daughters and sons of the holocaust.  I've seen the multi-generational scars of true evil.

I believe that Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wishes to destroy Israel.  That is not irrational.  He has said so repeatedly.  He is also trying to obtain nuclear weapons.  So what is dishonest about saying that if no country will stop Iran, it will mean the end of Israel? 

If you saw a child running in front of an oncoming car, would you cry out to try and prevent the child from being killed?  I suspect so.  My columns and newsletter are just such a cry. 

If you can think of a "higher purpose" for which I might write, I would like to know it.  I can think of none more important than preventing a second holocaust.

If Israel is destroyed, it will not be the end of America's troubles with Iran and the Arab jihadists.  It will only be the start.

With every fiber of my being I pray that I'm a fool.  I pray that my worry that President Obama will not take actions to stop Iran is unnecessary.

If one of us must be wrong, then please G-d let it be me.

I have removed your name from my mailing list.  If you ever have a change of heart and wish to continue to hear from me and reply back, let me know.

Dean 

Reader:  I think you should really examine the approach you use to get your ideas heard and to get, what you call, dialogue with others.  As someone who has studied communication and who spent many years as a mediator, I would like to suggest to you that perhaps it is not your desires or ideas that need refocusing but your delivery system.
 
Freedom of speech.  Freedom of thought.  Expressing concerns.  Questioning policy.  Exploring options.  All well intended and important.  But, you have a way of blasting your opinion, using one-sided rhetoric and giving conclusions with few hypotheses.  You use the current administration's methodology of fear to drive your points.  Its unintelligent and drives people away more than it includes them.  Some may say its clever and prefer that approach but this approach is unfortunately used by some very skewed, sick, and hateful media mongers.  The majority of the public is sick of this style.  I know that I am.  That is how you come across.  If that is not what you wish to communicate, then find another approach and represent yourself more authentically.  Maybe you will then do some educating and even find some people to really dialogue with you.
 
Good luck to you.

I did not write back.  I am, however, open to another approach, if anyone reading this cares to suggest one.  What I really wonder is if there is any way to reach her and others like her?  How do I warn people of a potential catastrophe without being an alarmist?  And if there is such a way, will it do any good?

If you would like to receive my weekly e-letter, which comes out Sunday mornings, email me at dr@deanrotbart.com and put the word "subscribe" in the subject line.