Jon Alterman felt Tom's comments about him were way off base. He wrote:

Tom:
As you are a bold and unconventional thinker, let's do a thought experiment. Let's say, just as a counterfactual, that Barbara Slavin had space constraints in USA Today and didn't capture all of Ahmedinejad's comments. And let's say, as well, that those same constraints means she didn't capture all of mine. If so, your snarky comments could be way off base about an event you didn't attend and a set of comments you only gathered incompletely. A conventionally thinking person might think you owed an apology.

Tom's reply:

Jon,

I took all that for granted, having been subjected to the same effect many times and actually being forced to do the same in my own reporting (according to the victim, of course). To be more fair, I would have included such logical background flavoring in my post to give you the benefit of the doubt. My mistake.

It's that old rule that the press can only use what you give them. Slavin had a great point to make, and you got in the way (thankfully, by my measure).

So in the end, I am grateful that you asked the question and were nice enough to follow through with the logical analysis.

My snarkiness, as you put it (fair enough), like all feedback, reflects my sensitivites, not yours. I am sensitive to all the over-the-top slurs tossed against anyone who does not pre-emptively buy into the "second nuclear Holocaust" sale on Ahmadinejad ("So you support Israel being wiped off the map? Because, that's the only alternative to a military invasion!"), because, as I've argued, Israel deserves no more of a strategic "zero deductible" than Europe ever enjoyed in the Cold War under a far worse correlation of forces (for example, NATO didn't possess a huge nuclear advantage like Israel does), plus, as so many serious experts point out, Ahmadinejad ain't the "decider" on that one. Beyond those two simple points, there is a host of evidence that says Iran's leadership is hardly suicidal and has consistently demonstrated a serious understanding of what they can--and cannot--get away with when they tug on Superman's cape through terror proxies. To admit that, of course, makes me the Cold War equivalent of a "pinko" in this argument.

So I admit to teeing off on you a bit in the post. Nothing personal whatsoever. Would have done it to anyone so nailed in the piece (I assume your feedback to Slavin was stronger).

Clearly I have offended you in that manner, and for that I do apologize. If it had happened to me, I would feel a bit used by the whole process, so I understand your frustration and would therefore value your good opinion of me more than the snarky bit.

So again, sorry for offending and best to you,

Tom