In the blog post just beneath this one, I challenge Pathetic Paul S. Kessler to write back and respond to my questions.  Big brave Paul, who labels me a "self-hating, kool-aid drinking" Jew, huffs and puffs and tells me that he doesn't want his pitiful response posted. 

Frankly, I think Paul is a wuss.  Hiding behind his mommy's skirt, he is big and threatening.  But having the courage to spew publicly what he vomits at me in private is just too harrowing for sad sack Paul.

I could publish his response despite his warning not to.  I never agreed not to publish what he writes me, in fact, if you read my response to him, I specifically promised him that I would publish his unedited response. 

So what does Paul do.  He writes me and tells me I have no right to publish his remarks.  Duh?

Oh yes, Pathetic Paul also tells me if I email him again he'll consider it spam.  Ooh. Ooh.  He is so scary.

I guess Paul doesn't know the actual definition of spam.  Here is what I emailed him back:

I think the definition of spam involves me sending out mass emails to persons I don't know.  Obviously, we now know each other.  I think the law would say if you don't want email from me, block it or don't open it.

When I studied law, I seem to recall that if you send me mail and ask me to abide by any "restrictions," I'm under no obligation to do so unless I previously agreed to some such restriction, which I most certainly never did.

I'm a journalist and a blogger.  You knew that when you emailed me.  If you didn't want me to publish what you write to me, you probably shouldn't have sent it.

Could it be that you are full of yourself when you write one-on-one, but sheepish to stand in public exposed for the shallow intellect that you really are?  Just curious.

DEAN