That editorial I wrote

Okay, so the feedback is starting to come in regarding my editorial in the October paper. In it, I sort of tepidly endorse Barack Obama. You can read the editorial for my reasoning, so I won't go into it here, but the central gist of it is that while his tax policies are likely to be worse for business owners than John McCain's, I think Obama's long-run vision for energy is a game-changer. I think energy is the single most important issue of our time, and I find McCain/Palin to be covering their eyes and pretending the problem isn't there. They'd be the sort of captains who advocate more bailing (or maybe drilling) as everyone else is jumping on the life rafts. If you disagree with me, I'm okay with that. And we've gotten both positive and negative feedback that's created some cool dialogues. What I won't tolerate, however, are the cowards who've called our offices, refusing to identify themselves, and yelled into the phone that they're canceling their subscription, blah, blah, and then hung up. What purpose does that serve? I'm sorry if you've come to expect so little from your industry publications that an editorial made you angry and you didn't know what to do about it, so you lashed out in the only pathetic power grab you could think of. But, you know what, I disagree with editorials, on issues big and small, in all kinds of papers I respect (the Wall Street Journal and New York Times, among them), and I rarely spite myself by denying myself their content in the future. I love to hear people disagreeing with me. Arguing is one of my favorite past-times. And maybe I do stir the pot on purpose sometimes. But I won't engage with people throwing around ad hominem attacks and setting up strawmen to knock down. So, fire away, but keep your discourse civil and intelligent. And please acknowledge that people can hold opinions opposite to yours without being "ignorant" or "biased." Because that's what opinions are: biases.