Thank you for taking the time to write that thoughtful explanation, Stan. I appreciate it.
Yes, I see what you mean. That does make sense within the framework of such a high profile and high quality publicaton as the New York Times. They are striving to present a professional and cohesive image to their readers.
But I view Medium more like a forum or a collective blog, but which we can earn money from. Perhaps I need to rethink that attitude? But anyway, I regarded my article as like a normal response, but I submitted it as a new story because I thought it was long enough and contained enough additional points to be worthy of being its own story.
Essentially, what I did was only a step beyond what you have done here. Because your response is publicly visible too. It's just not as likely to get read as a new story.
In hindsight, what do you think would have been the best approach from the following:
1) Write it as a comment on the original story?
2) Write my ideas as a new story but without referencing the original story?
3) Write it exactly as I did, but not publish it in the same publication?
4) Keep my views to myself.
Obviously, we can rule out option 4.
Option 1 is a possibility, but it would mean that my ideas wouldn't have reached as many people.
Ironically, option 2 seems a bit unfair, as I wouldn't even be giving credit to the original author for their inspiration.
Maybe option 3 would have been the best approach? In the end, that's what happened anyway.
By the way, in case you haven't read it, this is the story in question:
Also, here is the original author's response to me being removed from the publication:
https://medium.com/@kirsty.kendall/oh-my-thats-so-silly-644d1289d3ed
