“But what I have always been struck by, especially during those years I spent running the commercial side of the Guardian, was the extreme rarity of businesses and other organisations responding to bad coverage by pulling advertising or in other ways seeking to influence the editorial agenda.”

Why “struck”, if it is so obviously insane?

There are voices from the other side, too – suggesting the Guardian should withdraw from the relationship with companies it disagrees with instead. But “A lone voice is manageable; the Guardian would have a serious problem if several journalists on the paper began criticising major advertisers, who might well decide to switch to more supportive media platforms. This is a grave threat when advertising provides around 75 per cent of the Guardian’s revenue.”

It might well be wrong, but is it obviously insane? And is it not a very minor point to take so literally in what was so obviously rhetorical?

“Now, I know that Polly is not tremendously au fait with the oh-so-complicated concept of cause and effect, but…”

?

I mean, if you’re going to have a go at someone for basic logical failure, you might want not to talk total nonsense in the same sentence.

I can’t even work out what this is supposed to mean.

Oh, and Neil: I have a rather splendid chin actually. Do you find it distressing that your lower lip blends straight into your neck?

DK