I could present this in some more detailed or more organized fashion but the workday is getting short and none of it will be new to regular readers of this site, so I’m just going to come with it: There’s a massive distinction between arguing with someone’s baseball analysis and suggesting that the baseball analysis in question comes with insidious motives.

I like this job a lot. I have a platform to write about baseball and sandwiches and space travel and whatever else that comes to mind, in large part because no one ever tells me what to write about. I can’t speak for anyone else and I don’t speak for anyone else. This site’s called TedQuarters. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are my own and only my own except where noted. If you believe otherwise, honestly, just don’t read it. You’ll save us both a hell of a headache.

Which is to say: I want to be able to continue writing what I believe about the Mets, which often comes through my own pathetic lens of optimism, without worrying that anyone will think I’m doing the Wilpons’ bidding — as is sometimes suggested by email and in comments sections elsewhere.

I recognize it comes with the territory and I know I shouldn’t care as much as I do, but it still stings to have all the hours of work and energy you invest in something undercut by some guy who doesn’t know the first thing about you suggesting that your work comes with less-than-honest intentions. And I realize, of course, that this is pointless, because people are going to believe what they want to believe regardless of what I say here. So we’ll all just carry on, I guess.

Here’s an ice-skating monkey: