If by "angry response" you mean that Cowing demanded that the comment be removed and claimed he had a legal case if you didn't, then I'm pretty disturbed and dissapointed by that. I get the sense that's what you mean, at least. If by "angry response" you just mean that Cowing wrote back, "oh yeah? Well, your momma!", then nevermind the rest of this discussion.

In previous flame wars involving KC, the issue has been claims and counter claims of actions taken by KC towards posters here. I can see how KC could reasonably demand that unproven accusations of what would consitute criminal harrassment be removed.

But even if phrased pretty offensively, commentary about Cowing's published work and his biases/motivations as a journalist would have to be fair game. Keith is a public figure in this sense. Clearly, it would be fair game here to claim that Dan Rather pushed the "AWOL" memos because he hated Bush, that Fox gives the White House easy coverage because they get special access in return, or that one or another contractor got selected for political reasons. Nor would accusations like that be any different then some of the anonymous comments from NASA employees that NASAWATCH has posted over the years, questioning the movtives of NASA executives.

Robert, I don't blame you for editing the post no matter what the situation -- it's clearly not worth your time to fight even obviously bogus legal threats. So I'm not criticizing you.

But if Cowing thinks that he has the right to suppress criticism -- even juevenille and insulting criticism -- of his published works and publically stated opinions, that's very dissapointing to see from a supposed journalist.