(Background for this post is below.)
Let's see if they respond this time. I particularly like the bit about Dan Rather at the end. If you feel like stealing the comparison, feel free. Their email address is: firstname.lastname@example.org if you'd like to tell them that they should admit that they're wrong.
I was glad to see that you posted an update to your original support of Ann Coulter's column last week. Unfortunately, your update contained a few falsehoods, and not the correction that I requested.
But before we get to that, I would like to offer you further evidence that the NYTimes didn't "out" anyone, and that their actions where not "deplorable," as you say. This evidence comes from one of the people who you think was outed, Maya Keyes. She has a blog, and wrote on it here:
In which she says:
"I was directed to this column of hers [Ann's] which is just so horribly untrue that it's almost amusing. She doesn't mention names but it's easy to see who she's talking about. She makes it out like someone outed all of us when in truth we all outed ourselves..."
Where she says:
"Thinking about Ann Coulter's column yesterday also made me think of another thing that's been bothering me. In all the emails I've been getting there are a lot of people who send their condolences, not for getting kicked out of my house, but for being outed."
"Which, to tell the truth, really bothers me. I know these people think they're being supportive, but they're operating on an inherently homophobic assumption."
"I mean, look. I am queer. I have said so on this blog openly for years now. I gave a speech at an LGBT rights rally about the problem of homelessness among LGBT youth.[...]"
"So, just for the record, let me state unequivocally:
"As an openly queer woman, I do not have any problem with people referring to me as an openly queer woman. This is not an invasion of my privacy, it is not anyone else 'outing' me, it is not something that I need anyone's sympathy for. There is plenty else in my life right now that I could use some supportive wishes with but simply being queer is not one of them."
Guys, there is just no way around it. Maya Keyes was _not_ outed by the NYTimes, and there is ironclad proof. Her privacy was _not_ invaded by the NYTimes, and there is ironclad proof.
Now to the incorrect stuff in your update:
1) In your update, you give dictionary.com's definition of the verb "out." Which is: "To be disclosed or revealed; come out: Truth will out."
But this definition is the intransive sense. When speaking of the NYTimes "outing" someone, you are using it in a transitive sense. You chose a definition that is vague, but more important, is not a definition of the word as you're using it.
Furthermore, in an email that I sent you I quoted Merriam Webster's definition of "out," one of which contains a transitive [sense]: "to identify publicly as being such secretly." The Oxford English Dictionary says, "To expose the undeclared homosexuality of (esp. a prominent or public figure)."
Both of which make me think that you were looking for a definition that best suited your needs. I don't want to speculate on your motives, but I must admit that I am suspicious when only the most convenient definition is given.
2) You say, " I would argue that when the New York Times publicizes the fact that a private citizen, of whom few people have heard, is gay, it is "disclosing" or "revealing" that fact to its readers, a mass audience.[...] Either way, what the Times did is deplorable."
But you ignore the public statements of these private citizens. Candace Gingrich's bio says that she is "a key advocate for issues of importance to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community." Jamiel Terry, on the GLAAD website, is described as "a sought after speaker and writer on the issue of gay rights." Maya Keyes came out at a gay rights rally, and her statements on this subject are above.
Indeed, would it be wrong for a liberal to identify you in print as "prominent conservative bloggers?" Given that you've made your political leanings public, and, in fact speak about them regularly, I'd [sic] don't think it would be.
3) You attribute these actions to the "New York Times," when in fact, it was a columnist (a guest columnist, in fact) who said all of these things. You seem to be indicting a publication for the statements of one person.
You were named "Blog of the Year" by Time Magazine. You are often credited with helping topple Dan Rather in the wake of the TexANG story, and are congratulated for correcting the factual error in Rather's broadcst.
Given that Rather's broadcast contained a central factual inaccuracy, I can't help but think that it's ironic that you referred to a source (Ann Coulter), and then defended it, even while the source is verifiably wrong. Perhaps it is time for you to admit that you was wrong, if for no other reason than to save face, and to avoid further comparisons to Dan Rather. Funny that he's stepping down tomorrow night.
Indeed, if we can't trust the "factcheckers" to check their own facts, what good are they?
By the way, I think your trackback mechanism is broken.
In any case, I do hope you'll admit your error. If you don't, I would like to know why.