Letter-Comments on letter
In last week's letter by Richard Timmerman, titled "Disgusted with editorial policy," Mr. Timmerman wrote: "I give up thinking there can be a reasonable expectation for civility in the HSO letters to the editor." He further stated that: "The letter from Judy Stray was repulsive, especially when the writer referred to the 'public lynching' of HSB member Sandra Gehrke." Timmerman scolds the HSO for allowing the "public lynching" term, because it "connotes and brings to mind" the lynching of blacks in our nation's history.
I'm confident that Gehrke is still among the living. Stray used it as a figure of speech: "to convey deeper meaning and heighten effect."
Timmerman selectively and needlessly brought the racial element in. And he used much harsher language than the writers he criticized, while scolding the editor for publishing them. What he didn't do, was challenge the opinions with substantive counter arguments.
Timmerman's counter for my letter was: "The letter by Gerry Lancette doesn't justify a reply, but once again, you [the editor] allow a letter writer to horribly disrespect a public figure with mish-mash rhetoric."
The HSO letters section is by far the best I've seen but has conceded some precious ground to the type that bring cowbells to public gatherings with the intent to suppress ideas they can't bear to hear -- and don't want others to hear either. Further concessions would result in a letters section like most other papers: politically correct and void of originality.
Gerry Lancette, Hudson