Context is everything, Ginger, that’s true. In an open letter addressed to this particular recipient, though, I think including a reference to the causal incident is improper.
The letter’s to Smith, whom I also criticize. I doubt that the impetus for writing this—an explicit sexual accusation, allegation or charge by his (apparently, former) best friend and business associate—could be necessary as context for Will Smith. In fact, I think it could be damaging to my purposes here.
For the general audience, which is Autonomia’s intended readership, and knowing my readership, I figure the inquiring mind will either want to know and find out, which is easy to do. Or think twice, evaluate, judge and come to the conclusion or realize that whatever’s the basis for this letter is not the main or central point. I think the intelligent reader can discern that Smith’s been the subject of a specific, sexual charge.
This open letter was easy to write, though I don’t take your criticism or point lightly. Context matters. For this open letter, so does tact.
Scott, I absolutely did not mean to criticize and I hope you didn't take it that way. I agree that it would have been inappropriate for you to include reference to the causal incident but perhaps an introduction for the clueless general reader ahead of the letter? Point taken I should have done my own research. Huge apologies if my comment was impolite. I certainly didn't mean it to be.
Thank you. Warm and appreciative rejection of the apology still stands—none’s needed! Cheers. Incidentally, if you do choose to discover what was charged (note and mind the Henley “Invictus” tie-in), I think you may see the challenge in a clarifying light. Again, I welcome your thoughts.
Depending upon your Substack account status, and I’m probably the least technically proficient, you ought to be able to see three dots in the upper right hand corner of your comment which allow you to edit your comment. I hope this helps.
You were not the least bit impolite. On the contrary, and I did write “or point” in case you did not intend the comment as criticism, I value, appreciate and welcome criticism. I really do, Ginger. I love that you wrote this comment. No apology necessary.
Sure would have benefited from some context. I don't keep up so I was hoping to get a clue in your copy. What did he do/say?
Context is everything, Ginger, that’s true. In an open letter addressed to this particular recipient, though, I think including a reference to the causal incident is improper.
The letter’s to Smith, whom I also criticize. I doubt that the impetus for writing this—an explicit sexual accusation, allegation or charge by his (apparently, former) best friend and business associate—could be necessary as context for Will Smith. In fact, I think it could be damaging to my purposes here.
For the general audience, which is Autonomia’s intended readership, and knowing my readership, I figure the inquiring mind will either want to know and find out, which is easy to do. Or think twice, evaluate, judge and come to the conclusion or realize that whatever’s the basis for this letter is not the main or central point. I think the intelligent reader can discern that Smith’s been the subject of a specific, sexual charge.
This open letter was easy to write, though I don’t take your criticism or point lightly. Context matters. For this open letter, so does tact.
Scott, I absolutely did not mean to criticize and I hope you didn't take it that way. I agree that it would have been inappropriate for you to include reference to the causal incident but perhaps an introduction for the clueless general reader ahead of the letter? Point taken I should have done my own research. Huge apologies if my comment was impolite. I certainly didn't mean it to be.
Drats! I can't edit the above so I'll just amend it here. On re-reading, I think you pretty much answered my point. Apologies still stand.
Thank you. Warm and appreciative rejection of the apology still stands—none’s needed! Cheers. Incidentally, if you do choose to discover what was charged (note and mind the Henley “Invictus” tie-in), I think you may see the challenge in a clarifying light. Again, I welcome your thoughts.
Depending upon your Substack account status, and I’m probably the least technically proficient, you ought to be able to see three dots in the upper right hand corner of your comment which allow you to edit your comment. I hope this helps.
You were not the least bit impolite. On the contrary, and I did write “or point” in case you did not intend the comment as criticism, I value, appreciate and welcome criticism. I really do, Ginger. I love that you wrote this comment. No apology necessary.