The Definition of a Threat

A few days ago, I was included in a twitter conversation when one correspondent advised another that he better look up the definition of the word "threat". 

And as the week wore on, it dawned on me that perhaps certain people just don't comprehend what that word means. 

Here is some help from Merriam Webster Dictionary:

¹threat

noun \ˈthret\

: a statement saying you will be harmed if you do not do what someone wants you to do

Easy, right?

When Wolk and the Era accuse someone of threatening the family of Stephen Somerville, please fill in the painfully obvious gaps in your story for the rest of us. 

1) How exactly did the threatening party intend on harming the Somerville clan?
2) What demand did the threatening party make of Stephen Somerville in exchange for avoiding this stated harm?

If these accusers are so certain of their assertions, then surely to Betsy they can provide these simple details, right?  The fact that they have remained mum on this for over a month is the basis of suspicion for many of us.

Once we know the details of the threat, we can judge how seriously Stephen Somerville took the alleged threat.  We do know that this was supposedly uttered on February 5th and it wasn't until two-weeks later, on February 19th that Somerville dropped from the race.  In the interim, Somerville launched his campaign, his website and hosted a couple of social events to promote his candidacy - obviously not behavior typical of someone who feels his family is in peril. 

Or, the Era and Wolk can continue to play possum and wonder why nobody believes what they say any longer. 

On that note, it was gratifying to see a number of readers defend my right to post my blog anonymously.  Thank you for coming to my defense. 

I don't really mind if the Editor of the Era and/ or Wolk protest that when I write anonymously that I lack credibility because let's face it, their own credibility is certainly doubted right now. 

Like the Era Editor, we both publish editorial columns anonymously.  We both use sources that have asked not to be named.  I believe that I do a better job of verifying the truthfulness of my sources which is why no one ever challenges me on the facts of my blogs.  I also believe that I am more accountable to my readers in that I never edit the comment section (unless in the rare instance where I believe a comment crosses the line and becomes libelous) whereas the Era only publishes letters to the editor that represent their agenda.

But unlike the Editor of the Era, I have never called what she does "cowardly".  I recognize that we employ similar methods we publish (editorials written anonymously, using anonymous sources, and so on).  If my blog is cowardly then it is only fair to say that so is her newspaper.  And if my blog offers little to the debate as she says, then isn't the same also true of her words?