Ah, screening. Your old game - meaning third parties (who are the only important people here) can't see what you have to say. Well, the difference between you and I is that I honestly hadn't seen it. I first saw my e-mail notification, then the journal entries, with this one showing 0 (zero) entries.

I have read your screed, and I have to say that for self-righteousness and unblinking mendacity, Richard M.Nixon and Dan Rather have nothing on you. Is it an American feature, that when one sets out to lie one has to raise every device of pseudo-puritanical vanity first? The only operative phrase in the welter of posturing and insults is as follows: "I may be an asshole" - as if anyone would deny that by now - "but I am not a liar". Well, if so, you have failed to explain to anyone how you could write a review that ignores the central episode in the book it reviews in the name of a moral equivalence that denies it and that nobody who has actually experienced the events (except for convicted villains and their lawyers) ever believed? I may add that I charged you not only with lying but with historical ignorance, cultural imperialism, racism and ethnocentrism. You still said nothing about any of these charges either.