A vendetta continues...

It seems that one person's vendetta against Eve Fairbanks over a New Republic article her editors assigned her is continuing way past a reasonable point (he's even trying to create a verb).

But the shots now extend to me, by extension, simply because I stepped up, and said that the shots taken at her were, in my opinion, unfair. Now, it seems, that because I did so, he's saving some for me:

The one guy who took a subscription, and has the same view of ethics as Fairbanks, did respond and say he was happy.

I have added the italics for emphasis.

I have written for Strategypage.com since November, 2003. I do not have the final decision on what items get published or what doesn't. The editor does - and if the editor tells me to write something, I have two options: Write the article, or refuse - and if I do the latter, the editor has every right to tell me to seek employment elsewhere.

As an example, I'll point to a recent article I wrote on some of the newer fighters coming out of Asia. When I submitted it, I included what I figured was a humorous way to describe the Mitsubishi F-2. I wrote:

Japan's F-16 variant, though, clearly took either steroids of VGH (Viper Growth Hormone). The Mitsubishi F-2 carries 17,800 pounds of bombs on thirteen hardpoints, has a top speed of 2145 kilometers per hour, and a combat radius of 1,000 kilometers. This plane is expensive, but it carries an active electronically scanned array radar, and is capable of carrying four anti-ship missiles, four air-to-air missiles, and extra fuel tanks

Here's what appeared on the website:

Japan's F-16 variant, though, is clearly the most capable aircraft to come out of East Asia in a long time. The Mitsubishi F-2 carries nearly nine tons of bombs on thirteen hardpoints, has a top speed of 2,145 kilometers per hour, and a combat radius of 1,000 kilometers. This plane is expensive, but it carries an active electronically scanned array radar, and is capable of carrying four anti-ship missiles, four air-to-air missiles, and extra fuel tanks.

The editor was well within his rights to make the edits he made. He runs the site - I work for him. It's not about not having ethical standards. I simply know who makes these kind of calls in this sort of thing (or any matter of employment) - and anyone who works for someone else (not just in writing, but anywhere) should know this as well.

It is way past time for this vendetta to end. The person who has carried it out has tried to allude to her cell phone in a comment on my blog (which I removed). He seems to think that simply because he claims to be a "victim", his actions and behavior are somehow immune from comment. They aren't. And, quite frankly, his conduct has been very short of exemplary (in my opinion). I guess this is just one of many people who can dish out all sort of criticism, but have no ability to take it.