Your accusation is false. I did not write what you claim. If there has been any impoliteness in our exchange, it has been your own false assertions and arrogant and patronising tone.
Clearly, your question was disingenuous, as I thought, and the fact that you have still not answered my own reinforces my feeling that you are unable to accept criticism without considering it an attack. The result is that you become defensive and inappropriately and unnecessarily commence an attack of your own that cannot even be excused by another’s hostile tone or action, let alone any reality.
I did begin to write a comprehensive critique of your comments on some of the writers I listed but realise that it would almost certainly be wasted as what you claim shows so little understanding of either the work of those writers or what it has effected on the part of both individuals and societies across the World.
Your dismissal of Marx and your implication that poets are not writers, together with what seems to be a complete paucity of understanding of Shakespeare’s work and its effects portray such shallow comprehension or a level of bias and insularity that I doubt I could overcome.
So, no, I won’t unpack further. It saddens me that you have responded this way for I was neither attacking you nor disparaging the feelings behind the piece on which I commented. Indeed, I did indicate, at the time, my agreement with the essence of what you were writing.
The irony here is that you asserted it to be a “fool’s errand” to write to bring about change in others and also, later, claimed somewhat patronisingly
“And look, this may come as a shock, but I don’t write for you, the reader.”
but then immediately contradict that with,
“Sure, I want what I write to be interesting and readable, and I hope people enjoy it and get something out of it.”
After which you become more openly abusive or, if you wish, impolite, as well as exposing your disdain for your readers with:
“But commenters (like you) who inevitably show up on any piece, no matter the subject or how it’s written, and claim it should be changed as if they’re asking a restaurant to skip the salt do not seem to understand this concept. The dish is served as it is served, no substitutions. If it isn’t for you, that’s fine. But there are no special requests.”
Even leaving aside the poor syntax, appalling use of punctuation and false generalisations, that piece of prose presents as aggressive, ignorant and unbecomingly adolescent hyperbole. Indeed, to tarnish it completely you need only add the unsavoury sexual adjective of which you seem so fond.
