I hope everyone who read the original reporting on this issue takes the time to read all four parts of your response. ...and not some reporter's Cliff Notes version of it. The Times PR machinery acted in the way most PR machinery works -- provide a short, almost meaningless response when reporters are converging over a hotly controversial story. While usually that is considered a good approach, this demonstrates why that is sometimes not the best approach. There are two sides to every story, and it's kind of unbelievable that in this instance the NYTImes -- of all entities -- didn't seem to think we were entitled to hear both sides and make our own judgments.