Yes, it came from my brain and no, I see nothing disproportionate--I was quite measured. You weren't wrong to express your feelings — yes, it’s good to have the courage of one's convictions, but your comment did not express your convictions on the topic. Rather, your comment was a passive-aggressive criticism of how you mistakenly felt I treated Randall (as if in any event he would have needed you to stand up for him)(did you see that he had already commented?).

You were off base in that your criticism stemmed from misunderstanding the essay and my quoted exchange with Randall from his piece, which I see you have not clicked into read (had you, instead of wrongly assuming you understood what his essay was about, perhaps this conversation would not be happening).

I expressed and explained this, strongly, but I did not attack you. That would have been disproportionate. Perhaps you read my energy of more than mild and now growing annoyance and thus it felt disproportionate.

In any event, why you felt compelled to chastise me for how you perceived my behavior toward someone else is something for you to self-examine.

Lastly, you seem to be implying that one should only speak from their heart and not their brain. I disagree. We have both for reasons beyond the biological. In the initial comment, you implied that anytime the "ego" speaks that is bad. I also disagree with such new-age spirituality misconceptions. The soul and the ego (animus) need each other. Neither can survive on earth without the other. I cringe when I see people equate becoming enlightened with ego death. I may be expanding this further than I need to and will stop now.