I read this local paper (which generally is crap, although it sometimes makes a good effort and I am sympathetic to the difficulties of newspaper publishing), often am alarmed at the articles and letters, and occasionally (rarely recently) write in myself.
There are some letter writers who submit something for almost every issue.
As I was making the dog food, I couldn't get one of the letters off my mind. I had been shocked when I initially read it, but as I often do, clicked to the next thing on my list and decided to ignore it. Didn't work.
So I came back upstairs and sent a short note to the editor:
I think because I am contemplating the semester's beginning, which means a new section of Toleration class, I couldn't just let it go.
It's not my intention to argue the merit (or lack of merit) of either position in Mr. Murphy's or Mr. Langbert's ongoing debate, but to ask the Olive Press a question. In your August 26 editorial, you state: "Look back over the pages preceding this editorial... folks are addressing local issues, occasionally angry over interpretation of facts and reading of signs. But the dialogue always returns to a central civil reality: people enjoy the dialogue."In whose reality does slapping someone in the face with a crowbar qualify as civil?
Later: the editor responds: "I guess only when it occurs in print. good point..."
I didn't bother emailing again, but isn't that a distinction without a difference?