Patterico reader Regret has had an interesting e-mail exchange with L.A. Times Readers’ Representative Jamie Gold regarding that misrepresentation of Kerry’s op-ed, which first I told you about on Tuesday, and followed with more detail on Wednesday.

The Wednesday post has a more concise summary of the details of this misrepresentation. Read the comment thread for the details of the e-mail exchange. If you want pinpoint links to the particular comments, here they are: Regret’s first e-mail is here. Ms. Gold’s initial response is here. Regret’s very effective reply is here. Ms. Gold’s response is here.

Here is Ms. Gold’s explanation for why Kerry’s op-ed, which was an argument in favor of better diplomatic solutions to nuclear proliferation, was described in the Times as arguing for “tougher efforts to find and destroy terrorist organizations”:

That he is arguing for something “tougher” is implicit when he says that what the president proposes is inadequate. “Can be defeated if they are found” supports the idea of finding them.

She doesn’t even try to defend the use of the word “destroy.”

Gold is looking at the op-ed like a seer looks into a crystal ball, and reading into it concepts that aren’t even remotely there. And the Times readers will never know the truth — unless they read this blog.

As I told Regret, I appeciate someone else running with this, because it keeps my blood pressure down for that person not to be me. If you read the exchange you’ll see what I mean. But it could cause your blood pressure to rise some . . .

Regret is not the only one to write a well-written e-mail to Ms. Gold, as the comments to Wednesday’s post show. If you want to join in, write Ms. Gold at Readers.Rep@latimes.com. Let us know what she says in response.