It began as I was searching for people to talk to me about the phenomenon of Mercury in Retrograde, that I was writing about for Wired News. Often when writing about esoteric topics I look for online forums about the subject matter. And once there, I do usually find someone I'd like to interview. In this case, I found the following posting from mrlace2000.

"It is hard to believe Kerry is going to reannouce his candidacy during a mercury retrograde. The 1st time he announced his candidacy it was also a mercury retro."

-- I wanted to know what he meant. I hadn't detected any political stance in the comment, and wasn't after one. I wanted to know how Kerry's move had been effected by Mercury in Retrograde. So I wrote,

Hello mrlace,

Hello,

My name is Daniel Terdiman. I\'m a writer working on a story for Wired News (www.wired.com) about Mercury in Retrograde, and how people perceive it to effect things, people and events.

In any case, I saw your posting about Sen. Kerry\'s announcing for president during Mercury in Retrograde, and I wonder if I could do a short interview with you about it?

If so, it could easily be via email. But it would have to be by mid-day Thursday, California time, as I have to write that evening.

If you're interested, I can be reached at jschooldan@yahoo.com. . ..

-- The next morning, he called me, unsolicited. I had not left him my phone number, so he clearly looked it up in a People Search of some sort. I had been asleep, and he was calling to see if I was ready to talk to him, pending his "stipulations?" I didn't know what he was talking about, so he told me he had already left me an email, which when I read it, would make me understand what he was talking about.

-- So I went to look, and found:

Att: Reporter
Interveiw is possible on my terms.
1) you must call me at my work 212-354-**** between 8:15am to 3 pm edt. (Since I may have phone calls coming in during our conversation you must realize the clients/boss have priority over your interveiw.)
2) you must answer me honestly the following questions:
a.. Who did you vote for in election 2000?
b. what do you think of GW Bush?
3) I want your phone # in case you do a butcher job on what I have to say, so that I can retort.

Your email seems to be on the up and up BUT I believe nothing of what I hear(read) and 1/2 of what I see. If these terms are met you may have struck gold.
Kindest regards,
Arnold XXXXXX

-- I thought about it for awhile. First I called him in advance of the deadline he'd imposed. His assistant said he was out, and so I left a message that'd I'd called.

Then I decided to answer his questions by email. I knew that was an unusual choice for a journalist, but in this case, I felt it didn't really matter. I wasn't interested in his political leanings, only the reasoning behind his statement about Sen. Kerry. I also knew that I had other sources, and it didn't matter to me if he didn't like what I had to say. I admit it was an unorthodox choice I made, but really, I felt it was inconsequential.

However, the way I answered him was a gamble, and here's where I suppose I made a mistake. Because his work phone number was in the 212 area code (Manhattan) and because both his voice and his full name said to me, Upper Middle Class, Upper West Side, 50something or 60something Jew (you know, the personality we've all encountered a million times in our personal lives and in our professional lives –journalists, at least – especially if you've lived in New York or have relatives there), I pegged him as a Nader liberal and certainly as anti-Bushie.

So I went out on a limb:

Mr. Siegel,

This is Daniel Terdiman writing you back. I just called you at your office (at 2:20 edt, in advance of your stated no later than 3pm timing), so I hope we can still talk today.

I'm happy to try to answer your questions in advance of our interview. And of course, since I don't know what your political views are, I certainly can't know what you would consider to be the "right" answer.

I will tell you that my article is not about politics, and I don't intend to take a political stand. I'm simply interested in your comments about how announcing for president during Mercury in Retrograde might be a negative thing for Sen. Kerry.

That said, I will answer your questions, as I have no problem standing behind my political views.

a) I voted for Gore.
b) I think Bush is bad for this country in just about every way, socially, politically, economically, militarily. He has destroyed the good will the U.S. had with the rest of the world, and made it less safe for Americans no matter where they go. And he's involved us in a never-ending guerilla war where the only winners are his buddies at Halliburton, Bechtel and the oil companies.

Ahem. If my answers were likely to help you decide whether to speak with me on the record, then I assume I've either got you on my side, or completely driven you off, and that's fine.

But now, I've satisfied your requests. Please do call me back, so that we can talk.

Thanks very much,
Daniel Terdiman
Wired News

-- Right around noon my time (3pm edt his time) I decided to call him once more since I hadn't heard back yet. He answered his phone and quickly told me that he couldn't talk, that he'd just sent me an email and that – once again – I'd understand when I saw it. I say okay, and hung up.

This is what I found:

Since you admit to being the typical San Fagcisco radical lib I'll pass. I give you credit for your honesty BUT........
Let me refer you to Richard XXXXX. . . . Good Luck and try to stay out of SF's Lib Fog. It clouds the mind. . ..
-- I was pissed off. I'll be the first to admit it. I felt tricked and attacked. I knew I'd fallen for his trap, and that made me feel stupid, and his comments made me angry. Now I knew that my new 'friend' was no longer going to be a source for my story, so I felt free to devolve this into something personal.
I felt very self-righteous. I was shocked, honestly, that someone that lived where he lived (Manhattan) and who was of his demographic, would say the things he'd said. It didn't fit type. I was confused.
Now I knew that my new 'friend' was no longer going to be a source for my story, so I felt free to devolve this into something personal. So I fired back:
Mr. XXXXXX,

Too bad you have to stoop to saying things like "San Fagcisco."

I really don't mind that you're passing on my article, because I'll have enough solid material either way. I'm just sad that people like you insist on sticking to negative discriminatory attitudes.

I should have known better than to take your bait. Thanks for the lesson.

Good luck with where your "president" GWB takes you and our beloved country.

Daniel
-- He didn't waste much time. It was obvious now that he'd set this whole thing up as a way of engaging me in an ideological shouting match. And I'd staked out just the position he wanted me to. That's what I thought when I read his final missive:
Start facing facts. The toleration of fagism is over. San Fagcisco (whose sister city is Paris) is the most arrogant City in the country. I lived there from 82-86 and had enough of the lib political bigotry. Your discription of OUR president was typical and so I retorted your degrading with my own. I will be following your writing in the future making comments where I think they should be. Meanwhile I have forwarded your stupid discription of GW to the White House and to the Republican Jewish Council. I veiw you as the enemy within. People who think the UN is more important than our own country are the true enemies of decency. I veiw polite bigotry as still bigotry. Even Nazi's were polite and didn't veiw themselves as bigots. You look at me as a bigot because I do not tolerate perverts ie fags. If they want to fuck each other in the ass it's their right behind closed doors. BUT teaching children that homosexuality is okay and not perverted is WRONG and should never be tolerated. Colin Powell's policy which Clinton was forced to accept wasn't good enough for the fags. Don't ask don't tell could have worked but fags weren't satisfied with toleration. They had to push the envelope with forced acceptance now they will lose even the toleration. It will no longer be a human rights issue. It is now an issue of what we teach children. Perversion is wrong and dangerous and causes death. If you don't believe it causes death you better interveiw a few proctologist.
-- I was outraged. I felt completely attacked, intruded upon (he had my home phone number, my name) and again, stupid. I'd brought all this on by taking his bait in the first place.
I decided I could win this argument. I would outwit him with facts. Or at least, pseudo-facts. I began to launch volleys, one after another. I wrote:

Mr. Siegel,

I don't know why you are so angry. But if you are
purporting to represent Jews with your stances on
people and lifestyles, I am ashamed to be of the same
faith as you.

Here are some things for you to chew on:

1. GWB will be the first president since Herbert
Hoover to LOSE jobs during his presidency. How's that
for an economic plan?

2. A completely competent Iraqi engineering firm with
experience rebuilding bridges after Gulf War I put in
a bid of $300,000 for the rebuilding of one of
Baghdad's bridges; The bid was rejected in favor of a
$50,000,000 bid by Halliburton. That's our tax money
being spent needlessly on projects that directly
benefit personal friends of the Bush Administration.

3. GWB lost the 2000 election and resorted to the help
of his brother (the governor of Florida), his Florida
campaign chairperson (by gosh, the Florida elections
commissioner), and a partisan Supreme Court to steal
Florida's electoral votes.

4. GWB probably couldn't find Israel on a map, and
Clinton was the best friend Israel ever had.

5. GWB was a cokehead, and probably still is a heavy
drinker. Do you really believe that he choked on some
pretzels? And as for his family values, why are his
own daughters in constant trouble with the law?

6. Bush's illegitimate war in Iraq is resulting in the
daily deaths of U.S. soldiers who are being killed by
an increasingly angry and international guerilla army

7. John Ashcroft lost to a DEAD man, that's how much
people in his own state thought of him, and now the
rest of the country has to suffer from his dictatorial
edicts about what's right and wrong.

8. There are more gays in New York City than in San
Francisco. Deal with that!

9. You asked me what I thought of GWB and I told you.
You didn't explain to me that if my views were
different than yours that you would attack me and
display your obvious bigotry.

10. Tolerance for homosexuality is not over. The U.S.
Supreme Court - which, if you'll recall, is the
highest law in the land - recently struck down illegal
anti-sodomy laws. Deal with that!

11. The fact that there are gays in San Francisco has
nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

12. There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
We were misled as a country by a illegitimate
president.

But I decided to show Kathleen that I was taking the high road here, and read it to her (to her laughter). But she's wise, that one, and did what I really wanted her to do, which was tell me not to send this. She had me send it to her, and I did. I never responded to Arnold. I ended it. I know he'll be watching for my story. I know that I'll be thinking about this for awhile, fighting back the urge to send him angry messages. But this blog entry is enough. Chris is also wise to suggest posting it here. Though Arnold may be watching here, too. Hi Arnold!

Daniel