You're gonna be bothered by how cool I am.

I'm reluctant to continue spamming connielane's LJ, but I couldn't find an e-mail address, so I'm replying to you here.

But, I have to say that the apology probably wasn't necessary. Or, at least, not as a specific response to my feedback about the essay and ensuing discussion.

My discussions with you were part of the reason why I did post the apology, but not the only reason, or even the main reason. I decided to post it after seeing various comments on this thread and in reply to my post that made me think that if anything I had written made people feel the way they did in those comments, I should apologize.

Furthermore, I chose to belabor the issue in the context of this entry because it seemed to me (although I've already allowed for the possibility that I could be mistaken) that you interpreted the R/Hr vs H/G aspect as coming primarily from H/Gers, without good enough reason, and I did not think that was accurate...

So, your implication that the response you received reflected a measure of "rivalry" is potentially accurate, but any intimation that it was solely or mostly coming from H/Gers is not.

This actually makes things a lot clearer for me, because I did not realize from your reply to me here that this was why you were asking me for clarification, and I didn't realize that this was how you'd interpreted my comment to connielane.

I'm actually very surprised that what I said came across in that way. Here's my actual clarification, copied from above:

"What I meant was that even though my essay was devoted almost entirely to R/Hr and basically had one sentence referencing H/G, quite a few of the comments I received discussed only the part of my essay where H/G came up."

I meant this to include both the comments from H/Gers who were upset by what I said, and comments from people who were saying, "Yes, I totally agree! R/Hr is so much better than H/G!" without mentioning any other aspects of R/Hr as a ship. I was puzzled, because these replies indicated that some people had interpreted my essay as a comparison of the two ships, when it really wasn't.

You're probably right in speculating that putting the sentence about H/G at the end of the essay may have increased its impact, but I didn't mean it as a conclusion to the post: I had just included it in a bunch of "Miscellaneous Bullet Points," which is how I often round off my longer entries. But I can fully understand why some people may have interpreted it as a concluding point.

I'm really genuinely surprised that I sounded as if I considered the rivalry and R/Hr vs H/G as "solely or mostly coming from H/Gers." I really can't see anything in the sentence I quoted above that would suggest this, but I guess some things just get lost in translation.