Good writing does its job effectively and subtly, gracefully guiding the reader along. Bad writing, however, is like a nest of termites in your wall. You never see the damage it does, but your clients and customers notice. Go here to see how G.D. Gearino can help.

You may recall my recent exchange of email messages with Bill Randall, the Republican candidate for the 13th Congressional District. You may further recall that the word “loon” figured prominently in those messages. At the end of that post, I advised readers to stay tuned. Here, with the barest of comment, is the (apparent) wrap-up of our discussion.

First, Randall’s message to me:

You are repeating the allegation (false) that I accused the Obama administration of collusion. You and others readily attempt to discredit me based on “reported” stories.

Sigh!

If you view the entire (unedited) version, you may reach a different conclusion. Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5txTdohc6w

Please call for a short “icebreaker” conversation.

My reply to him:

You’re not helping yourself here.

I’ve watched the video several times. You start off by making a very reasonable point: That the fact BP was allowed to sidestep safety procedures when it drilled the well is worth investigating. But at the 2:00 mark, you say this:

    “Personally, I feel there’s a possibility that there was some sort of collusion. I don’t know how or why. But in that situation, if you have someone from a company proposing to violate the safety process and then the government signing off on it, excuse me maybe they wanted it to leak. But then it got beyond what was anticipated …”

You can sigh all you want, but you’re on videotape speculating as to whether there was “some sort of collusion.” Later in the video, the reporter asks you this question:

    “You just suggested that maybe the government colluded with BP to have a little bit of a leak and it got out of control. Tell me what the possible motivation would be for either BP or the government to have any leak at all?”

Your answer?

    “I have no idea.”

Your answer wasn’t, “Whoa! Did I really say they colluded? Gosh, I didn’t mean that.” And it wasn’t, “Maybe I overstated that. I don’t really believe there was a conspiracy to cause a leak.” Instead, you merely said you had no idea why the administration and BP would do such a thing.

You don’t need to talk to me. You need to be talking to your campaign director or political adviser or whoever it is you listen to. You can’t make people unhear what they’ve clearly heard. Your smartest strategy right now would be to acknowledge you had a bad day, and move on.

Randall’s last response to me:

You have taken much of your valuable time to provide your candid and straightforward perspective. For this, I thank you.

Feel free to engage in the coming months if something piques your interest.

So: Randall asserts I’m guilty of repeating a false allegation that he accused the Obama administration of collusion with BP. He sends me a link to a five-minute video, which he says will set me straight. I watch the video — and hear him say exactly what he denies saying. When I point this out, Randall sidesteps that knotty little problem and instead simply thanks me for my “candid and straightforward perspective.”

I guess reality is now just another “perspective.” Meanwhile, it looks like I’ll be casting a write-in vote. I don’t know who will get that vote, but suggestions are welcome.