I'll engage with the other arguments later if I have time, which I think I will, but just couldn't let this one go.

dhudak: OK, so Kaufman recently has

1. explained how Dennis Rodman was not an good player

No, I explained how Dennis Rodman was roughly an NBA average player, a little better than that in his Detroit days when he deigned to score, and a little worse in his Bulls days, when he supposedly carried them to three championships in spite of chumps like Jordan and Pippen hanging around. Or something. And I also pointed out: A league-average player is a pretty good player.

You're off to a good start.

2. explained how Bill Laimbeer, while a good WNBA coach, is a horrible person and should not be allowed to live.

Really, back away from the crack pipe, pal. Where and when did I say that? I did write a column in which I called him a "lovable lug," "likable in a weird sort of way" and "good ol' Bill Laimbeer" and explained that the reason I like the Detroit Shock is their coach -- Bill Laimbeer.

I also made it pretty clear that I hated him as a player, as all non-Pistons fans did, because he was a dirty player and a whiner. Where's the part about horrible person or not being allowed to live?

Oh, it's right there, under the crack pipe.

3. consistently griped about Isiah Thomas' NBA career as coach and GM.

I admit, in light of what he's been able to do with the Knicks, this is pretty tone-deaf of me.

Cannot recall anything bad he's written about Joe Dumars, yet. Also, I guess he can't find anything to complain about Mark Aguirre or Vinnie Johnson, but I bet he is looking. (I am leaving out John Salley because he's too easy a target.)

I'm not looking. I loved me some Vinnie Johnson back in the day.

King, why not just come out and admit you hate the Pistons?? At least the Bad Boys group that won a couple of championships at the end of the 80's...

I did hate that team, sure. I don't think I've made a secret of that. I hate all teams that win a lot that are not in the Complicated Calculus of Teams I Root For. I don't think that colors my view of them, though. It's just dumb fan stuff. I hate the Yankees with a passion, but how many columns have I written defending Alex Rodriguez against dumb Yankees fans? I hated the Bulls too. I hate almost every team. Doesn't every sports fan?

I enjoy your columns because you're provocative, not because you're objective.

Aw. Thanks. I do consider that a compliment. And I'm kidding about the crack pipe. But I also think I'm less provocative and more objective than you think.

Freddie, first of all it looks to me like the crack comment was taken by its recipient in the joshing tone with which it was intended.

And also, this is just a flat-out distortion: Saying that someone is smoking crack because they disagree with you is something I would expect from an eighth grader.

That's not what happened at all. The crack-smoking comment was in response not to someone disagreeing with me, but with someone making things up out of whole cloth. Reading a column in which I praised Bill Laimbeer as a coach and a person, or at least a personality, and interpreting that as my saying Laimbeer "is a horrible person and should not be allowed to live" is not disagreeing. It's delusion.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. In fact, I welcome it. And I make no claim to superior knowledge or insight because I'm a sportswriter, or have this job, or anything. Those are claims you claim I make. I haven't noticed anyone else making this complaint about my behavior around here, but if there are others silently nodding their heads, let's hear from them. I'm willing to listen.

I like to argue. The tone I believe I argue with is not "superior font of knowledge from on high" but rather "guy on the next barstool defending his points." I reserve the right to do that whether I have "superior" knowledge or not. It looks to me like plenty of other people around here reserve the same right, which is what makes reading and answering these letters so much fun.