Dear fellow writer, my taste in coffee is pretty good and my understanding of science isn’t half bad either

I guess writers get negative comments in the “Write a response” section of their piece from time to time. But I’ve never seen a case where one writer added a note to the bottom of their piece for the sole purpose of attacking another writer. So I’ve decided to share Keith Parkins’ comment with everyone:

“Wayne Delfino demonstrates appalling bad taste on coffee, lack of understanding of science, invites comments on article, then blocks others from reading their comments.”

I’d like to respond.

Mr. Parkins, though taste is subjective, your comment that my taste in coffee is appalling is dead wrong. As someone who goes through more than a few cups of java a day, I prepare extraordinary espresso time after time with my own Rocket espresso machine.

You claim to be a coffee expert, so I’m sure you’re familiar with Rocket — you may even own one. You know the Milan-based company is a joint venture between Andrew Meo of New Zealand and Daniele Berenbruch of Italy, where coffee has been a key feature since time immemorial. Meo and Berenbruch successfully combined their different coffee philosophies from different parts of the globe to make some of the best espresso machines anywhere. That’s why I’m puzzled that you felt the need to attack my taste in coffee. For the record, I’m not a Starbucks fan. Perhaps I didn’t make that clear in my piece. As you know, once you’ve developed a taste for the finest espresso, you just can’t drink the other stuff.

Though you are highly critical of my piece “We need to talk about coffee,” it received applause from coffee lovers around the world for bringing two recent studies to the forefront that found drinking coffee might help us live longer. Among fans, and you might find this interesting since you are from England, London’s Perfect Daily Grind, the leading online coffee-related publication in Europe, gave kudos on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Mr. Parkins, maybe it goes without saying but you don’t have to read my work if you don’t like it. You’re right. I’m not a scientist. In fact, I humbly admitted in one of my other pieces that I’m not proficient enough in advanced math to be a scientist. That’s why I make reference to credible studies that I think do a good job with particular aspects of science rather than give my own opinions and judgments. Nobody expects me to be Stephen Hawking to be a contributor to Thrive Global. But I do know enough to be dangerous. Plus I verify everything I publish.

And let’s get this straight: I don’t usually block readers. I welcome comments good or bad. Yes, I did block you. But that’s only because you had one agenda: to promote your own piece. You didn’t say anything about my piece. You just kept promoting your piece over and over. Not a link but the entire piece. I could be wrong, but I don’t believe that’s what a response section is about. I believe it’s to respond. Maybe post a rebuttal. But not to self-promote unless you do it right — which means giving something in return.

That being said, truthfully I don’t mind that you modified your piece to include a note about me. In fact, I want to take this minute to thank you for the link. I suspect you are responsible in a small way for some of the thousands of views I got. I’m sorry your piece wasn’t as widely read. Perhaps by linking this post to your piece, your audience will increase. Good luck!