My response:
“So this is a hit piece[!]”
After, presumably, realizing that that was all I was going to say, he came back with:
“I have attempted to rectify the situation between us, I really don’t know how we will communicate if you do not read all of what I have written. I am assuming that [you] are reading some of what I write, and we can go from there, however, without you telling me, I will have no way of knowing how much of what I wrote you read.”
I replied that I had read only his first four words:
“You called my article a ‘hit piece.’ You said, ‘Hit pieces, like this…’ Honorable people do not write hit pieces. To say I wrote a ‘hit piece,’ is to attack my character. The instant I am attacked I will stop reading. If I inadvertently read more, I try to suppress what I read, no matter how nice what comes after an attack might seem to be. What can what comes after an attack actually mean?
“The accusation that I wrote a hit piece must be addressed. Any responses to what I wrote cannot contain implications that challenge my character.
[Refers to an earlier attempt at conversation:] “You said you didn’t even understand what ad hominem was, when it clearly meant from the context, character assassination. You could have googled it. Instead of addressing my complaint you said you didn’t understand what I was talking about. What am I to make of that?
“Address my complaint. Understand that by not addressing it, I still stand as accused of writing a hit piece. That is, of doing a dishonorable thing!”
He later replied with a true apology. I was and am truly grateful!
Ghoh 
The internet is weird, because the written word has no tones, as does the spoken word. People fall into shadows that take more words to unravel than they are worth, given thee are so many other things we might be doing- part of why I do not mind not being on Facebook, as that would take up 80-90%..
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would have taken that as a typo, thinking he meant “I hate pieces, like this.” And, either his translator wasn’t working right or he didn’t do spellcheck. Either would be antagonistic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He meant hit piece as in “hit job,” meaning that my piece was a character assassination of Donald Trump. His response was to a post on Facebook that originated in a WordPress reply, that I didn’t, but may post on WordPress.
Please accept my apology to you if anything I say is disturbing.
I see Trump as a person whose character cannot, by virtue of what he says and does, and continues to do and say, be assinated.
My friend seems to be a Trump apologist. I say “seems” because he doesn’t take up Trump’s cause, but accuses me of being unfair. I took an extremely severe position in my post, but it is what I sincerely feel. I am deathly afraid of Trump.
I said that the vagueness of the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution was intentionally vague to afford us the ability, even in the absence of High Crimes and/or Misdemeanors, to save ourselves in this kind of circumstance.
To call my writing a hit piece accuses me of unfairly – unfairly being the operative word – attacking someone.
Please accept my apology for so many words and especially for any discomfort, or worse, that I have caused you.
LikeLike