You correctlycontinue toperform your editorialtask of publishing letters you believe are informative, even if highlyopinionated and exaggerated. Your selections of Feb. 15 included one that I believe exercised a great deal ofmendacity andhyperbolain itscontent as areply to a letter of mine that had previously criticized a submission by the author, Roddy Riggs. I do not believe it would benefit your readers for me to furtherengage in a tit-for-tat exchange with Riggs.However, I dobelieve it would help all your editorial page readers to appreciate the facts and opinions expressed by authors ofopposing views if you would run again, on the same day, as comparisons, the previous letters being denigrated.
Now I realize the rerun of such a comparison would take up a large portion of the space available that day. However, to run a letter such as the one on Feb. 15 does not help your readers determine the correctness or validity of the opposing views.This isprimarily because of the publicationtimedelay between opposing letters,and it is not fair to theearlier author.
Byincluding the previous letters with the latest one,your readerswould more likely be able tomake the determination as to which of the authorslays outthe better case.