I read a blog at times called Denialism. Go figure. It is part of a wider range of blogs grouped together on Scienceblogs.com, and can be found here. It is maintained by a couple of brothers, a new doctor and a lawyer. The doctor is making rounds in surgery at the moment, and still finds time to post. That in itself is fucking amazing, where does he find the energy to go like that and still be organized enough to post anything at all.

One of his posts was the subject of a piece in The New York Times, and in the doctor's view it put his post in a bad light.

Somehow a post about how impressed I was with surgery, the professionals that practice it, and how many of my preconceptions about surgeons were incorrect, got all turned around into some "peak behind the curtain" into the secrets of the medical profession. This is terribly absurd and the article made a hash out of what I was trying to say.

I don't think it was as bad as he makes it sound, but you can read it for yourself and judge. I commented though, because he came to the conclusion that the confusion was his problem.

"This does not mean that there is no problem however, ultimately this is a sign that I need to remember that I am writing in a public arena and need to be more careful with the assumptions I make about my audience on any given day."

This is nonsense. Why, if you are writing for a specific audience, do you need to pander to some that cannot, or refuse to understand. THEY don't understand, so YOU have to work harder? Complete BS. How about expecting just a little effort from individuals to consider they might not have the background necessary to comprehend everything written? I don't think that is too much to ask.

Another reader thought that, maybe, the doctor should take the time to consider how others may read his posts. After making that point, they also said my point was valid to some degree. Of course, I just had to respond.

I appreciate your thoughts and candor. Believe me when I say I'm not trying to be contrary or militant for its own sake, but I think the blog itself is a good faith effort. I find it extraordinary that he puts up with everything they throw at him, and he still has the inclination to post anything at all. On top of that, it is still as concise and coherent as it is. Furthermore, I don't think he said anything that people couldn't figure out for themselves if they really wanted to know.

But then again, I'm of the mindset that you can't please everyone all the time, so most of the time there is no point wasting time trying. Another point is that his candid observations are rare and rather refreshing, it would be a waste to compromise that simply to please a reporter.

I can be militant here though; Fuck that! Somebody takes offense to what he says, after going through everything they expect of him, they need to grow the fuck up and get a life. I simply did not like his conclusion that "the confusion of some individuals over what I was trying to communicate is still my problem, even if I was quoted all out of context." How the fuck do you accommodate someone that is willing to slice and dice what you say out of context? It is impossible, as is quite evident with politicians and pundits everywhere.