Just a couple or three points as this thread sinks into the ether...
Tom Spurgeon is right that he did say "attack obituary," which still sounds oxymoronic though not as much as the one I apparently made up, "attack eulogy." Mine is funnier, though.
Spurgeon claims that this thread did not discuss "the content" of the Kalish editorial, just the propriety of its appearance. I think all the criticisms by myself and others as to the "shill" characterization of Kalish have to do with the content of GG's piece, not whether it should have been done at all.
Somewhere Spurgeon passes a remark on how rife misunderstandings are on message boards like this one. To my mind they are as nothing next to the legendary, mile-long "I didn't say what you thought I said" refutations that have appeared, and continue to appear, in the JOURNAL. At least on such boards misunderstandings, misinterpretations and the like can be addressed on the spot, and in theory no one is destined to get the "last word."