The only reason that such an innocent remark would set one off is if one is insecure in their Jewish identity.

As a convert to Judaism, and a flagrant sinner with the goyisha name of Luke, I too at times feel the rage you describe. But that only says something about me and my insecurities.

When non-Orthodox Jews rage at Orthodox Jews who do not regard non-Orthodox streams of Judaism as legitimate, that reveals more about the insecurity of those non-Orthodox Jews who so desperately seek the authentication of the Orthodox than it does about the mean Orthodox. Those non-Orthodox Jews who are secure in their Jewish identity are not upset that Orthodox Jews do not regard their religion as authentically Jewish.

My theory holds for all sorts of feelings of rage when one’s identity is questioned. I remember when I was 19 and covering the San Francisco 49ers for radio stations KAHI/KHYL in Sacramento. I was hanging out in the press room at the 49ers training camp at Sierra Community College and a veteran writer asked me what I was doing there.

I told him and then questioned what he was doing there.

I was annoyed at being challenged precisely because I was insecure in my own bonafides as a reporter.

Feeling Jewish does not make one Jewish. For instance, I’ve noticed that the people who describe themselves as proud Jews and as having "Jewish values," are invariably the most ignorant Jewishly and the least observant. Jews who practice Judaism every day feel no need to assert their Jewish values nor their Jewish pride and they have no insecurity about their Jewish identity.

If one ever feels insecure about their Jewish identity, they need to learn Hebrew, study Torah, do mitzvot and pray daily with a minyan. If you do so, I guarantee that within a few weeks, your insecurity on this score (and many others) will dramatically diminish. But if one does not do these things, then you are a Jewish fake and no assertions of Jewish pride will mask your inauthenticity.

No Luke Ford blog post is an authentic Luke Ford blog post without a mention of sex, so here goes:

In my experience, women overwhelmingly regard anything they feel as right and legitimate. I rarely encounter a woman who is able to say that something upset her but looking at it rationally she realizes a truth that goes contrary to her feelings.

I would never tell anybody in the situation above to not get upset. They feel what they feel and all feelings are legitimate, but that does not mean that the thinking that creates such feelings is smart.

I usually get upset when somebody (particularly when they are in authority) points out to me bad things I am doing, but that does not mean that they are not right and that I am not wrong (even if I am not able to admit that in the moment). In some instances, what is true and right and good is more important than what we feel.

As Michael Medved says, "Liberals say — follow your heart. Conservatives say — do your duty."

Daphne writes: " I've noticed, by the way, that the pitifully few comments that showed up about our exchange..."

I guess that doesn't say much for your contributions. What exactly did you expect comment on? 

To put things in perspective for Ms. Merkin, I suspect I get more readers in a day (about 10,000) to my blogs than have bought her novel 'Enchantment.'

The solitary art of blogging is not inherently different from the solitary art of writing for publication in newspapers and magazines. There are plenty of essays I've written for websites that I have worked on for years. Not all blogging is tossed off and not all writing for publication in The New York Times is considered. And not all writing that is tossed off is bad and not all writing that is considered is good. Spontaneous prose sometimes sparkles and studied prose sometimes drags (a la 'Enchantment').

What primarily matters about a piece of writing is not who publishes it but whether the work has merit. Daphne's writing on blogs, for instance, lacks merit even though it is published by the frequently provocative Jewcy.com. 

She writes: "Here's my question about Wolcott: why does any print journalist or writer need a blog? Doesn't Wolcott get enough space to air his sometimes interesting, sometimes merely snappish thoughts and mini-thoughts in Vanity Fair?"

A blog is just a form of communication technology. It's like a cell phone or a computer or a fax.

There are many advantages for working writers having a blog, including:

* Lots of matters are not substantial enough for an essay.

* Lots of matters are not suited for your publication.

* Blogging is often spontaneous, and does not take the effort that writing for a regular newspaper or magazines requires. You can begin to work out something in a few paragraphs on a blog and then transform it later into a polished piece.

* Blogging is usually a quicker way to communicate than preparing an article for a paper or magazine. In a fast moving story, you can get something up and out on a blog more easily and quickly than for a regular newspaper or magazine.

* Blogging gives you the freedom to experiment.

* Blogging allows you to ask your readers for help.

In short, a blog is as useful to a writer as a cell phone or fax.