The email (misspellings and all) started out as if it were an apology.
“Yesterday while surfing the net I came across Candace Owens debating democrats during a congressional hearing. She so eloquently described how democrats used despicable to describe conservative members of her race as despicable. Her response was no one deserves to be called despicable.”
He called me despicable in one of the many emails he sends me for reasons unknown to me, other than to try to verbally accost me in hopes I will go away.
“Miss Owens is right and if you care to accept my apology I should have not have accused you of being despicable.”
An apology? Read on.
“There is a long list of synonyms of the word. One of them, hateful, does seam to fit when you mention president Trump in your columns,“ he concluded.
First of all, I have been called much worse than either despicable or hateful.
Secondly, it’s clear to me that he somehow believes he can silence me if he calls me names.
I am not going to try to refute what he says. Both adjectives are extremely subjective.
Am I hateful because I point out the thousands of lies Trump has told since before he took office?
Am I hateful because I find it odd, even amusing, that the president said that windmills cause cancer?
Who is really hateful? What about the world’s most powerful person bullying hundreds, if not thousands, of people in his tweets.
Calling the FBI “scum” is, in my book, hateful.
And if I advised people with young children not to allow them to read Trump’s tweets or his quotes on the internet, is that being hateful?
I know exactly what my critic wants. He wants me to back off mentioning the president in any of my columns.
That’s not going to happen. And neither is my attacker going to stop coming up with new adjectives in an attempt to wear me down or perhaps garner friendship with Trump.
I’m not even going to advise him to give it up. He wouldn’t listen.
He’s always right, you know. And unless you agree with him, you are hatefully wrong.