I understand the term Gaslighting because as well as being a psychologist – I am also a playwright and understand the full history of the word. The reason the word doesn’t apply in this instance is that I have made a public comment on a public article – one that disagrees with the premise. This is debate. It doesn’t attempt in any sustained way to cause the OP to question his reality, simply the words he’s using and the implications he’s making. If I were to accuse him of writing articles he didn’t write, or deleting my comments (when I didn’t write them) – if I were to only comment on his stuff and then deny showing a specific interest in his writing – you could argue it was a form of online gaslighting. However, given the intense level of psychological pressure required to convince someone to change their reality, I’m not entirely convinced that one can be gaslit online by someone they don’t know personally. The word is overused as a way of invalidating debate. Of course you are entitled to your own opinion on the matter – and we have debated it in good faith.

Argumentative is in my name – but polite back and forth is good for the development of individual processes. I will be more careful with my words in future. The word vitriolic in my comment is perhaps hyperbolic – your comments caused me to reflect on that, so thank you. Hopefully this back and forth will inform your feelings on the use of (or overuse of) the term gaslighting. Have an excellent day and thanks for the comments. :o)