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

That was quite gracious of you. :)

I've not acknowledged it sooner because, to be honest, I've been trying to figure out what to say and a way to do it without making anybody agitated (or implying that the issue is bigger than it is).

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.

For one, it sort of makes it seem like there's been this enormous outcry among H/Gers about it (I'm not saying that you think that or intended to imply that, btw), and I don't think that's the case at all (or, at least, none that I'm aware of). Perhaps some were riled up (and one of the things I wanted to accomplish was to illustrate a reason for it other than H/Gers just being LOLsensitive), but I think some of the responses you got (mine included) were more about how that "throwaway" line kind of undermined the intellectual (versus emotional) attempt to state a purely pro-R/Hr case.

It seemed to introduce an element of anti-H/G as a further support for the beauty of R/Hr and was bound to become a focal point in the discussion as a result. 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. At the time that I asked you for clarification above, there was only one commenter to your essay who solely addressed the H/G remark in a significantly disgruntled fashion. Any of the other responders (like myself) who called attention to it did so in a) a very calm manner, imo and b) also included contributions related to R/Hr. Furthermore, there was a higher number of people noticing and reacting to the H/G negativity and agreeing, applauding, or belaboring the point than there were people calling it into question (not that I at all blame the relief and solidarity from people like chickadilly and dianora who are delighted to find 'sane' compatriots who love R/Hr but not so much Ginny or H/G). 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. Again, I feel that I have to say that you might not have been meaning to suggest that, but that's how it came across to me, especially since you seemed to be dismayed at the pro-H/G dissent but not with the anti-H/G cheers.

Of course, if you wanted to submit a case that incorporates both, that's totally your prerogative. Anyway, as has been clarified here by connielane, your essay was not primarily what had her vexed. I just wanted to respond to what you had to say about its impact. In the end, I think the primary reaction (much of it not necessarily stated) is that people who like R/Hr (which is includes a ton of people like myself who also like H/G) were overwhelmingly in agreement about what you had to say about that pairing.

I just suppose I feel personally compelled to use way too many words to attempt to clarify my position and reasons for responding while trying to convey that I'm not actually "upset" enough personally or in a way that requires the making of amends. :)

It doesn't feel like I was particularly articulate, however. Oh well, *sigh*, these discussions are difficult and awkward sometimes and I think that is one of the things that was being felt at the time of the original post.

That was a very gracious response, especially since I realized after posting that my comment was too brusque to avoid being rude and intrusive. I apologize.