For any who aren't aware, this post relates to this post by Landers.

Tom, I can't reply to your private message because it says your inbox is full (again!). I'm actually quite glad; I've been burned before when giving others the power to misrepresent what I write.

Here is my reply:

I understand where you're coming from, but that doesn't mean I agree with you. Yes we all have different foci, and yours was completely off-field in the context of the blog post. In "message board ettiquette" as you put it, it could be considered off topic. It was NOT a debate post, it was a joke.

Landers and I replied to your comments for the same reason you have sent me this message, because there were things that needed replying to. YOU could have stopped at any time, and the difference is you were actually asked to. I think it would have been more appropriate for you to have done so given that the post was not about the fact that you thought it was a bad advert, but about letting people in on the joke.

You were in the wrong and were/are too stubborn to admit it, that was a big part of the problem. As I said in my last comment on the post, you had already stated your case several times, and it had been acknowledged - it felt like you were trying to teach us something, share your wisdom, and that was very patronising. We had already said it's fair enough if you don't find it funny, yet you continued to berate us with the fact that it wasn't funny and why it was not a very good advert. That's not a discussion, it's you trying to make us agree with you. It's not even a debate because you ignored much of what was said to you. The cut and thrust of the debate? I didn't see any; as I said, I felt bludgeoned.

Tom, I agree that it's preferable to discuss things politely, but if others do not want to discuss them you can't make them like you tried to, and that's when things got nasty. Who can you blame for that but the one who wouldn't stop going on about it? Even when you said we should stop, rather than just stopping you tried again to make us see your point of view. I posted a semi-conciliatory comment, and your response was to once again to state your opinion about the advert, ignoring the issue I was referring to.

As I said before, I did enjoy the whole thing, but only because we were laughing at you and your apparent need to make us agree with you.

Once again, you've pretty much ignored the content of my comment and focused on what YOU think, not what I've said. Go through the comments on Landers' post again, reading just our interaction and ignoring everybody else. Can you see what I'm talking about?

As for sending your reply as a private message, I understand why you've done it and as requested I will not share the message at this time. However, given that it contains nothing horrific or incriminating, I really don't see your problem.

I've already acknowledged several times that I understand where you're coming from. The least you could do is consider the possibility that you took the whole thing too far.