The beginning of the story was intended to be along the lines of "You've read the fiction, now here's what actually going on" and that's why I put in "fantastical" and "rampaging" (which I thought made it sound silly). I guess I could have made even snarkier. (I considered mentioning Crichton and Prince Charles explicitly, but the sentence was already long and becoming unwieldy and after all, I didn't want to give that much attention to what I didn't think was real.) The only similar reaction to yours was an email from Nathan Tinker from the NanoBusiness Alliance. Most people, I think, read it in the sense that I intended.
The New York Times
Well, now I did say it was a "Great NYT piece on nanotech ..." You're probably the unjust victim of a gut reaction from a trigger-happy blogger who was eager to use your piece to try to make a larger point (a general criticism of mainstream media nanotech coverage that I think still stands).
Now, here's a great thing about blogs. They can be participatory. I'd be honored if you'd allow me to run your note in defense of your lede on my blog.
Thanks for your note, Kenneth, except I'm not certain that Nathan Tinker would enjoy being mentioned in the same sentence as Howard Lovy.