I'm confused, and I'm not sure what you mean by the "3rd possibility [I] offered already". The New Yorker reporter suggested that maybe Alexander deleted his bl

I'm confused, and I'm not sure what you mean by the "3rd possibility [I] offered already". The New Yorker reporter suggested that maybe Alexander deleted his blog in order to conceal something bad that he'd written there from the NYT. That seems like a serious accusation to me, and I believe: 1. That this accusation is overwhelmingly likely to be false, because deleting the blog while leaving countless mirrors won't actually conceal what he wrote (and will actually popularize it short-term, due a sort of Streisand effect), and Alexander knows that, and Alexander is unlikely to take an action that would be futile or counter-productive. 2. That (1) is sufficiently obvious that the New Yorker reporter had to realize it. 3. That the New Yorker reporter published the accusation anyways, in bad faith (i.e., disingenuously, while knowing or believing that it's false), in order to smear Alexander. For each step, do you agree or disagree? From your reply earlier, it seemed like you were simply declining to take a position? But you call it an otherwise coherent argument; so maybe you agree the New Yorker reporter probably did write in bad faith? So is our disagreement just whether it's okay to call a reporter for a major magazine who uses that platform to falsely degrade a pseudonymous blogger's reputation "stupid or disingenuous"? I agree that's an insult and not too polite, but it didn't seem particularly harsh given the public smear. For what it's worth, I agree that my original post was generally flippant, because I was in a hurry and I strongly disliked the article. If you read through my post history, then you'll see that I typically write with more nuance (and that those posts get much less engagement, I guess demonstrating what everyone already knows about social media).