"This breed of critics has keen ideas, but their message gets overshadowed by the wrapper of arrogance and snobbery in which it is delivered. To them, every debate has two sides: Their side, and the side that’s wrong. Their style occupies so much of the spotlight that it gets in the way of their substance, so much so that sometimes you can’t tell what’s more important to them, journalism or self-promotion."

In it, I clearly identified the characteristics that I'm attributing to that term. You observed correctly that I did not provide any examples of people who I think exhibit those traits. I did that for the same reason I stated in the last paragraph for not plotting anybody except myself on the chart — I just don't think this post is really worth calling people out and making enemies over, and I still believe that. Nonetheless, as I said, I did provide my definition of that term, so I think you have enough there to know what I meant by the term, as well as the parameters for deciding whether someone fits that term. As for who meets that definition, that's a matter of personal opinion anyway. I may think someone is a total jerk while somebody might have a less negative reaction to that person's style.

Regarding your second point — that everyone got a bad review except the top right quadrant, I have a couple thoughts on that point:

1). I didn't just make up four random groups and then define one to be superior to the others. I'm working with two scales here — one on the pundits' knowledge and the other on their personality/nature. Both scales go from low to high, and the four quadrants are formed by splitting the two scales down the middle. In such a situation, there's no doubt that one of the four quadrants is obviously better than the other. That's not something open to interpretation or definition. It's just mathematical fact. I'm not sure how I can honestly say someone on the lower end of one or both scales is just as good as someone on the higher end of both scales.

2). On the point about leading my "loyal readers" to put me in the obviously good quadrant: Of the two "loyal readers" who have commented, one has commented on my blog a total of maybe 3 times, and the other has strongly disagreed with me on Twitter over another subject on another occasion. So I won't exactly say they're "loyal readers" in the sense that I can do no wrong in their eyes, nor do I want such readers. Also, consider it from my perspective: When I post this piece, it's out there for everyone to see, with no guarantee that everyone, or even a majority of the people, who read it would be one of my loyal readers (heck, you're obviously not a loyal reader). So how can I really expect to lead people into putting me in one quadrant or another. Honestly, leading people to place me in a particular quadrant didn't even enter my mind when I wrote the piece. Not sure how I can prove that to you, but it's the truth.

As for where your blog falls in the quadrant, I thank you for the opportunity, but I don't think this scale fits your blog. This was devised for journalism pundits commenting on journalism. At a glance, your blog is about relating your personal experiences. How can I really rate the level of your knowledge of your personal experiences? I can say that from a quick read of your blog, I didn't see anything that jumps out at me as putting you in the ass-clown category.

Thanks again for the comments.