I Said What I Said (Not What They Said I Said)
Let me be perfectly clear, because apparently clarity is a concept that has eluded the citrus cabal over at factjuice.com like sunlight eludes a root vegetable. I did not say that the Bitter Press "operates in a state of perpetual grievance with no editorial standards to speak of." What I said — and I will not be repeating myself a fourth time — was that we operate in a state of principled grievance, which is an entirely different thing and frankly a compliment if you have half a brain.
The piece in question, bylined by one Tangelo — a fruit so lacking in identity he is legally two fruits pretending — attributed to me no fewer than three statements I did not make, one statement I made but not in that tone, and one statement I stand by completely but resent seeing in their publication. This is called journalism at factjuice.com. I call it something else. Pomelo has asked me not to print what I call it.
Quince, who was present at the original remarks, has confirmed that the context was entirely stripped away. Sloe, who was not present, has also confirmed this, on principle. Even Durian — who disagrees with everything on a cellular level — agrees that something smells off here, and that is saying something, given Durian.
The rival rag has since issued what they are calling a "clarification." It clarified nothing. It was four sentences long, three of which were about Kiwi's feelings, and one of which contained a factual error about pith. I have kept it. I will be framing it. It will hang in this office as a monument to what happens when you let so-called workers with a subscription to a thesaurus near a quote they do not understand.
I was misquoted. Whether or not the words were technically mine is, at this point, beside the point.