You announce that you're a reporter in your description line. Do you not understand the difference between saying something that was not there and not saying things that were, which are relevant? Do you not understand that omission can be used to mislead? I clearly did not deny that "jostled" was used; I only pointed out that it was not the only thing.

This is embarrassing.

If you want anyone reading to take Bindel's history into account, you should explain it up-front. Given your egregious and stubbornly ongoing misrepresentation of Bindel's words in that particular article, you must forgive me if I do not trust a single thing you said about her. (Neither do I assume it is wrong--I just assume you're very strongly biased, and if I want to know the actual situation, I have to depend on sources who are not you.)

Anyway, I've made my point plenty well enough. It does not seem like you feel that there were any deficits in your article or your response to me, but I hope that at some point farther in the future you reconsider the degree of empathy that you express for others and the honesty with which you represent others.