[...] But to demand that I apologize for an idea simply because you don't like it is to miss the point: it isn't wrong for me to say things you don't like, and it is actively wrong for you to try to force me to change my opinions against my will. I think that George's problem wasn't so much that he himself didn't want to read what I'd written as that he didn't want anyone else to, either. George wanted an apology and penance from me to undo the damage I had done by expressing my opinion on the subject. At that point, George crossed the line.

George has his own web site, which I will not link because I do not reward pretentiousness. George has his own platform for distributing his point of view. George doesn't want to compete in the marketplace of ideas; he wants to suppress my opinions that he disagrees with and prevent me from expressing them.

It doesn't matter what specifically I said with which George disagreed. George has the right to disagree with me. He has the right to post his own opposing opinions on his own web site. But he doesn't have the right to demand that I retract my own opinion unless he can prove that I've violated one of a very small number of relevant laws on the subject – and I didn't.

I will not apologize for holding an extreme opinion on a subject. I will not apologize because others find that opinion objectionable. I have done nothing to apologize for, and I certainly have done nothing requiring atonement. I am using my Constitutional Right to express my opinion, and I spend a great deal of money each month to support distribution of my opinions. I take not a dime from anyone to help pay for it.

I deeply resent the implication that I'm not permitted to post anything unless George agrees with it. If George would like an apology, I would need to know which of his bodily orifices he would like me to insert it into. [...]

[...] But the original post was more heated than what I usually write, and I took another look after I had sent the email. Then I recognized the faulty parallel, which had been my inspiration for proposing an apology. So I took the post back down, noted it as having been changed to what you see in the previous post, and reposted it. Whoops, I guess I shouldn't have sent the courtesy email.

Then I checked my email. SDB had written a calm, reasoned email that noted a couple of things I had written. Crap - he'd already seen the original version. I replied that I had revised and reposted, and but for an innocuous title change (I think the original was "Let's put this one to rest") the post has remained the same since.

I went on to something else, then about 10 or so I picked up email #2 asking me who I was to ask for an apology, etc. Yes, the tone had changed. What I didn't know at the time was that subsequently he had also replied on his blog at greater length.

In reply I noted that we had crossed in the mail and I had already told him about the recall. Then I got his 3rd reply, which directed me to his post without comment. I had just come back from that when I saw the comment to the previous post where Godless Capitalist figured out who "George" was.

I leave it to the reader to determine the accuracy of Mr. Den Beste's characterization of my initial post, which in any case had been withdrawn well before his post appeared (note that he's in San Diego, CA, 2 hours behind me), and he had also been notified of this.

I must say, I learned a lot about myself. For one, I'm pretentious. Also, I'm trying to suppress alternate points of view (where have I heard that line before?).

On the other hand, who else can claim that Mr. Den Beste has mentioned their bodily orifices on his blog? Do you suppose I could sell pictures of them?

C'est la vie. We've all learned something new now, haven't we?