[piafraus]

If your intention to stop communication - you can block someone.

Or if that's the words that would've been chosen - I would agree to you.

But if you mix those words with extra message, then no. A reply to this new message is warranted.

E.g. if you add a reason and that reason is unreasonable - it's warranted to address that and reply to you. Either do a request without attached strings, or block. Don't write extra conditions/reasoning and then complain that someone doesn't agree with you on those and kept messaging.

[jlund-molfese]

Sure, or if you're being polite, or even short in a reasonable way "I'd rather not discuss this privately," that is fine.

Lori's emails are deliberately designed to goad Vlad into replying, just to act indignant when he does.

[sleepybrett]

> "Thanks for reaching out, but no, I would not. I am not interested in being cornered into a call by the owner of a business because I made a blog post about it."

This is not goading, this is telling someone to fuck off into the sun. If he wants to respond he can respond on his product with a blog post. His audience already dwarfs hers anyways, he Streisand-effect'ed himself because he's clearly got some narcissism issues.

[Aeolun]

Dunno, I don’t think I’m a narcissist but I get unreasonably pissed off about people talking nonsense without giving me a chance to respond as well.