Does your girlfriend know you post about her lingerie on your professional blog?  

Shh, not so loud …  

Jack,

If Al Gore can be the posterchild for being Mr Green then he can, surely, be the next big thing in fashion. Though given the reported size of his personal carbon footprint, perhaps he should specialise in plus size shoes?  

Yes, but that's my point...

Haven't you made a whole series of posts about how media exposure affected your relationship? Which led to you removing pictures and posts which referenced your girlfriend (at her request, if I recall correctly). And now you're telling the world about her knickers? It just seems to me that those positions are not entirely consistent.  

I was having you on. I thought you were able to work that out. If I was posting about someone specific, don’t you think I would have just answered yes or no? And would the world really have known who she was based on one sentence?
   The comment about knickers was not about anyone in particular. It could have been hypothetical and was, in fact, intended to be so. It’s what the word imagine is meant to signify.
   Think about it: who would buy Trelise Cooper knickers?
   People buy Elle Macpherson because they see the association between a supermodel’s sexiness and what they desire their girlfriends to be.
   The same association cannot exist with the Trelise Cooper name.
   Whomever I date, I just wouldn’t buy her Trelise Cooper knickers.
   No man would. Trelise Cooper is a brand that is likely to be bought by women for themselves, at least when it comes to lingerie.
   You are reading a lot more in than is there.
   You are right that I complained about media inaccuracies. Attention is one thing, fabrication is another. I have covered not only my own relationships, but one of a close friend in March, helping her get the truth out when the media attacked her.
   Since you think you know so much and wish to debate my private life publicly, just as TVNZ did, I’ll indulge this once more to set the record straight—although why a past relationship fascinates anyone is beyond me. I find it odd that the public continues to have any interest.
   The young lady you refer to took the position that as long as she knew about my blog posting in advance, there was no issue. She has proofread other things I have written about our courting, for public consumption.
   Removal requests were made, but never by her. In her conversations to me, she placed their responsibility on a person in her life whom is no longer part of it.
   Other outrageous claims were made by that person. I opted to guard her privacy and the events of our courtship, and withheld using them against him. It would have been too easy, but it would also have been improper.
   To this day, I can still back these claims up with her words, emails and texts—you don’t need me to prove this—just as I can back up all I said about our courtship, or as she called it, our relationship.
   The posts and photos you refer to simply have different privacy settings and she accepted that some photographs remained. Most had been accessible by my friends. They were removed from public view because I chose to, not because I was asked to by the only other person who had that right.
   The matter is not for further discussion, publicly or privately. I will not have people slant the story to their liking—and she knows I will stand by what truly happened.
   Besides, what transpired in our time together is no one’s business but hers and mine.
   You called me out, I responded, end of the matter.  

David, I think the former Vice-President can go for boots.  

Dear Mr Yan,

I wasn't going to reply, out of respect for your wish for finality, but seeing as you have chosen to make an uncomplimentary example of me on your other blog, I think you owe me the courtesy of a reply.

My query was simply sparked by what I saw as an inconsistency. I was surprised therefore to see my comments derided as abnormal, unreasonable, and demonstrating a low level of comprehension and literacy. I have no agenda, and am not interested in manufacturing any drama. I just asked a question.

I think it was entirely reasonable to read that statement about buying knickers for one's love as specific rather than hypothetical. Your comment was ambivalent at best, and given all the recent references to "being attached", "in a relationship with someone 12 000 miles away", being called from Switzerland by your "other half" and then writing that you hoped your stubbly photo wasn't a "turn-off" for Brigid (hardly something one would write about a platonic friend), I think many readers could read that as a specific reference.

If both the purchase and the girlfriend were putative, it's not my comprehension skills which are lacking, but a lack of information which created that perception. How can ambivalent statements be interpreted the way you want them to be if only some of your posts are accessible?

I'd also like to take issue with two other things:

one, you say that she made no removal requests. Why then, did you write this "Thus, it seems fortuitous that she asked me to remove the posts with her name that same day, which I have done." in your post: http://www.jackyan.com/blog/2007/01/not-guilty-my-honour.html ?

two, why do you think I am a man? FYI, and should it make any difference, I'm not.

ps if you publish this, I'll be very impressed!  

Ambiguous, not ambivalent!
See, we can both be guilty of being less than clear.  

Kindabemused, since I don’t put everything on my blogs, I’ll fill in some of the gaps.
   First, thank you for your clarifications. It seemed reasonable for me to jump to a conclusion about your identity (and, consequently, gender) given that very few people have chosen to respond to this level about my personal life. Those particular people who have commented in the past, known to us, and were dealt with in private email, are not welcome in my life and deserved the tone of voice you read. They very much deserved the unkindness you read elsewhere. They do have their own agenda. Not all blog commenters are created equal. So, if I was wrong about your identity, I apologize for the treatment I gave you. (If you knew these unsavoury types, I think even you will agree with the treatment that was dealt out.)
   Secondly, the January post you referred to was due to an erroneous recollection on my part. Being a blog, not everything is researched to the level of an article. I believe I have a slightly better record of accuracy given that I have been blessed with a better than average good memory for events and dates, but I’ll admit to a lower standard here than in my publications. I do not go back to each email or review each phone call, typically, when I write away. Blogging is therapy for me.
   When called to account about the removal of posts by you, I reviewed the situation more closely and gave you the most definitive and honest answer that I could—in part due to the first reason.
   Given aliases and anonymity, it is nearly impossible to deal with these matters as clearly as I would like.
   However, this hanging on to every word written about a prior relationship remains unnecessary. If you do not know either one of the parties, I applaud you for at least being more astute at filling in some of the gaps through close analysis of my posts than some who have used this blog to mount an attack against us. If you do know one of us, then it’s time to let this matter go.
   I publish your words not to impress you, incidentally: call it a blogger’s courtesy to have a valid viewpoint voiced.