OK, this is what happened on Monday night shortly after MPs voted to ban smoking in cars with children.
I arrived at Millbank studios in London, a few yards from the Houses of Parliament, at 8.20pm.
I'd been booked to do three interviews - a live head-to-head with Deborah Arnott of ASH on the BBC News Channel, a recorded interview for Five Live's Morning Reports, and a late night discussion, also on Five Live, with tobacco control 'expert' Professor Robert West.
I sat in the small reception area on the first floor and chatted to the BBC's friendly meet and greet person.
Then Deborah arrived.
I opened the door for her and she swept in clutching a cycle helmet and a large bundle of what looked like wet weather gear.
I guessed she had come straight from the House of Commons and was on her way home.
Now, to misquote P G Wodehouse, "It has never been hard to tell the difference between Deborah Arnott and a ray of sunshine."
Like her counterpart in Scotland, her default expression is what anthropologists call "chewing on a wasp".
Nevertheless I expected a half smile - a satisfied smirk, perhaps - to mark what must have been a happy moment in Deborah's life. Labour shadow health ministers were said to be giving each other high fives. Surely Deborah could join in the fun?
Instead my presence in that small vestibule seemed to provoke some inner torment. I paraphrase but the gist of her sudden and unexpected outburst was:
"The people have spoken ... MPs have voted ... It's a victory for democracy ... You've lost ... Forest should shut up shop."
The latter was spat out with real venom, like a royal command.
We may not be best buddies but we've always been civil to one another. What was going on?
The BBC's meet and greet person, who heard it all, was as bemused and unimpressed as me.
"Deborah," I said quietly, "this is unprofessional."
Moments later, live on air, Ms Crosspatch continued to denounce Forest and our links with tobacco companies, which she is perfectly entitled to do, of course.
It did however eat into the short time we had to discuss smoking in cars and I wondered whether it was a planned strategy or something she decided to do there and then.
Her bitterness towards Forest seemed to cloud any personal or professional satisfaction she must have felt about the vote and when the interview finished she marched off without another word to me.
Now, I would normally keep such incidents to myself but Deborah's behaviour crossed a line and it's not the first time she's acted like this off air.
I've heard similar stories from others who have experienced her unbridled wrath.
Does she think she's morally superior? That's how she behaves.
Is she unhappy that Forest attracts so much media coverage, even when we're swimming against the tide of political opinion?
Is she still smarting that the Hands Off Our Packs campaign gave Tobacco Control such a good run for their money? (And we're not finished yet!)
Winning battles is no longer enough for Deborah and her ilk. They want the entire battlefield to themselves.
Like the global warming lobby who want climate change sceptics banished into outer darkness, Deborah won't be happy until Forest is similarly silenced.
Later, on Five Live, Robert West also had a pop at Forest and our tobacco company connections (which couldn't be more transparent or legitimate).
In the context of the discussion it made little sense to bring it up but he seemed programmed to say it.
Which brings me to the next day (Tuesday) when something rather odd happened.
In an article headlined 'Is a complete ban on smoking next?', BBC health correspondent Nick Triggle described Forest as the "industry lobby group".
Now, you might think that happens all the time but you'd be mistaken. 'Smokers' lobby group', 'pro-smoking group' ... we get called various things but this was the first time I can remember Forest being called an "industry lobby group".
Given that it's not true - we represent the consumer not the companies - I was determined to get it changed. So I emailed Triggle and copied my email to one of his colleagues who I know as fair and reasonable.
Forest, I told him, is not an "industry lobby group". We receive donations from tobacco companies but we do NOT represent the industry or the tobacco companies.
I waited 15 minutes then called this same person on the news desk. He told me the matter had gone to his editor but added, "Nick feels strongly about this."
So I sent another email:
The Tobacco Manufacturers Asociation represents the industry. Forest does not.
I find it extraordinary that just because Nick Triggle feels strongly about this he is allowed to peddle his own line regarding the nature of Forest.
Oddly enough the line is very similar to that used by our direct opponents on the BBC last night.
I am certainly not aware of BBC News previously describing us as an "industry lobby group". Why now?
Result? 'Industry lobby group' was changed to 'tobacco lobby group' which I can live with although it's not strictly accurate.
But it's better than 'industry lobby group' which is wrong, regardless of what Nick Triggle "feels"!!
It's probably coincidence, but isn't it odd that the day after Deborah Arnott and Robert West made a point of highlighting Forest's links with Big Tobacco, the BBC's online health correspondent should refer to Forest as the "industry lobby group".
A more cynical observer might conclude the two things are related. Surely not?!