On Time.com, UVA rape survivor Liz Seccuro publishes a piece headlined, “Don’t Doubt a Victim’s Story Just Because It Sounds Horrific.”

I have no desire to get into an extended debate with Ms. Securro, whose strength and courage I have nothing but respect for. She endured a terrible experience and has turned it into something positive—she wrote a book about her saga and is now a victim’s advocate and professional speaker—which is heroic.

Still…Seccuro misrepresents what I have written and takes some cheap shots along the way. So let me at least defend myself. I learned some time ago that if people take shots at you and you don’t stand up for yourself, it only emboldens others to do the same.

Seccuro writes:

Former George journalist Richard Bradley fired the first shot at the Rolling Stone story. “I’m not sure that this gang rape actually happened,” he wrote in a blog post, using brilliant plagiarist Stephen Glass (whom he edited, and who duped him) as a comparison base for the idea that astounding and uncomfortable stories must be fabricated. Though Bradley’s rant was on his personal blog, doubts have now burbled up at established outlets.

That priapic language—I “fired the first shot”—is a little sleazy. Seccuro’s a smart woman and an accomplished writer; she knows what she’s doing.

My blog post was a “rant,” Securro adds—in other words, angry, aggressive, slightly out of control.

When you’ve tried hard to be dispassionate, it’s frustrating to have one’s words so blithely demeaned as emotional. I don’t think my blog was a rant; the New York Times, which called it an “essay” (too generous, but I’ll take it) didn’t either.

Like saying that I “fired the first shot,” with the anti-male stereotypes of that phrase, it’s sexist of Securro to employ the term “rant.” It’d be like if I called Securro’s article “hysterical.” (I’m not; it’s just a comparison.)

And then, the deepest cut; I wrote the post on a my “personal blog.” From way down in that muck, “doubts have now burbled up” to “established” outlets.

It’s a terrible thing when someone’s words are not taken seriously because they don’t come from a powerful source.

Now, I’ll grant that this blog is a modest endeavor, but that’s by design. When I started it in 2005, I wanted to have an outlet where I could write stuff uncorrupted by the desire to make money. I’ve been highly successful in that. In the decade since, and over 6, 000 posts I’ve written, I’ve never accepted any advertising or been paid a dime for this blog.

Is it unfair then to point out that, shortly after the Rolling Stone piece was published, Securro, who lives in the Hamptons and is writing a novel, tweeted out, “#college or #university who needs a #speaker about #rape? http://www.apbspeakers.com/speaker/liz-seccuro … @RollingStone @UVA”.

There—I’ve defended myself.

Seccuro’s major point is this:

Wholesale doubt or dismissal of a rape account because it sounds “too bad to be true” is ridiculous. Is it easier to believe a rape by a single stranger upon a woman in a dark alley? What about marital rape? What if a prostitute is raped? Just how bad was it? We should not have a rape continuum as part of the dialogue, ever.

I agree. All rape is horrific.

And I am not doubting Sabrina Rubin Erdley’s recounting of Jackie’s tale because it sounds “bad.” People do “bad” stuff all the time. I doubt the story in part because, in a Joseph Campbell-like way, a number of the details seem borrowed from works of popular myth, and also because the story contains internal inconsistencies (three hours on broken glass; a pitch black room but the traumatized victim remembers every detail; etc.).

There is nothing inherently wrong for a journalist to be skeptical—respectfully skeptical—about fantastical-sounding stories. People do lie about rape—both “victims” and advocates—and we should not have a truth continuum, ever.

Don’t you think the Times’ Nick Kristof wishes he’d been a little more skeptical about the horrific tale of rape told him by anti-trafficking activist Somaly Mam?

Mostly, I doubt Rolling Stone’s article because it relies on a single anonymous source; because it is uncorroborated by people who were allegedly present at the scene of the crime (or very close); and because the alleged victim apparently would not tell the author the names of the perpetrators she allegedly knew and made the author promise not to contact them. I believe if you are going to publish accusations of something terrible, you’d better make sure you have the facts. And this is not disrespectful to Jackie; I have no idea what transpired between Jackie and Sabrina Rubin Erdley. It is, though, respectful to everyone whose lives might be changed by the publication of such an article.

So I repeat: I have the utmost respect for Liz Securro. And regarding Rolling Stone, I respectfully disagree with her.