Thank you for the congratulations.

I’m going to need your help here: I’m having difficulty associating your analogy between what one’s name means, and how the use of that name cannot change the one whose name was used, with what I’m drawing as your conclusion.

In the opening sense, you seem to be reminding me that a review of my work doesn’t change my work. I think I can accept that. However, then you offer me something for perspective: To imagine my reaction had the review been bad.

In that sense, you’re seeing (correctly) into my own head: you seem to recognize, just as I do, that I would not have written a post about a review I received, in the same way as I wrote this one, had it been a bad one. Or, you might be saying that my perception of his review, and thus the reviewer, was skewed in favor of them because it was about me.

So can a conclusion be drawn from this? Perhaps you mean something like: “Write the truth for the truth itself.” If that is the case, then after only an initial thought here, I have to admit that that is what I thought I was doing.

Keep up the good posts…

For perspective, imagine what your reaction would be if his words were just as “deep” and “commanding” but they were negative…

Keep up the good work…