Letters to the Editor
Rachael F.
Published Letters: 157 Editor's Choice: 17
-
On GoG
[Read the article: How to explain my husband to my kids?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yes, I have also noticed that Gams on Glass advocates "MURDER" as the solution to pretty much every letter that he/she responds to. And tends to describe it in creative, but pretty chilling ways. Of course, I have no idea if GoG just gets a kick out of replying this way (which would be pretty weird in and of itself), is practicing his/her murder mystery writing, or is actually a psycho...but it concerns me as well. I'm glad I'm not the only one who has noticed.
Nah, I've noticed it, too. Thing is, though, he/she/it only does it here, in Cary's column. GoG has a score of perfectly sane-sounding letters in response to other articles. The "MURDER" posts are reserved for CT, making it look more like it's some sort of creepy harassment thing.
Nevertheless, the posts are disturbing, and also possibly criminal, since each of them actually advocates and advises murder. While I suspect GoG is harmless and sort of pitiful, if I were moderating this forum, I'd delete every post of that sort - for the overall comfort of the other readers, and because Salon can actually be held responsible for allowing someone to incite others to criminal activity if it does nothing to stop it.
It's not as if you'd be censoring him/her/it for political speech, after all.
-
[b]Not to be done EVER, under any circumstances.[/b]
[Read the article: Romance in a fluorescent-lit cubicle ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Bummer. Does this mean I have to divorce my met-at-work husband?
-
Heh...
[Read the article: Romance in a fluorescent-lit cubicle ]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Can you tell I usually code for bulletin boards?
-
"Neither a borrower nor a lender be"
[Read the article: My ex-con neighbor owes me money]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Of course, the guy who said that was meant to be seen as a bit of a buffoon...his platitudes were good for all occasions, but he never said anything of substance. Might be that a real-life situation is more complicated than Polonius' narrow view of the world.
-
Fear of strangers
[Read the article: Quote of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]On another note, it's a pretty sad world when we have to regard every stranger as a potential psycho.
I'm pretty sure the world's always been that way - anyone you don't know well is a potential threat. It's nothing new to modern society. In fact, if anything, we're in far less danger from our day-to-day interactions with other humans than at any other point in human history.
That said, part of what I appreciate about my current society (hey, it's not perfect, but it's still one of the best available) is that we don't just shrug it off and say "that's the way the world is". Because - so not the point. Protecting the weak (and even stupid) from the stronger and less-moraled is part of the point of having social rules. We're trying to have a civilization here.
The remark was just plain cold-hearted and callus.
Even though one of her deepest human instincts should be NOT to go wandering off with a strange man.
So, my point? The judge isn't wrong, exactly, to THINK what he clearly thinks about a young woman getting into a car with a strange man. But he's wrong to voice those thoughts, since they're hurtful and rude and don't contribute anything to the future safety of other women like her.
-
You know what's funny?
[Read the article: It's my abortion, too!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There isn't as large a gap in opinion here as a few very loud folks and one lunatic would make it seem.
Most women would seek the father's opinion (and, yes, support) before deciding to have an abortion. Many of us would even allow ourselves to be influenced by his opinion. Especially if he was someone we knew and cared for, rather than a one-night stand.
Most men would concede that once a woman has taken his opinion into consideration, the final decision about whether to have a baby must be hers.
Most people would expect, should she choose to have the baby, that the man would accept some parental responsibilities, despite the inherent unfairness of the choice to have a baby not being a 50-50 split.
Me, if a man told me he unequivocally did not want to have a baby with me, then I wouldn't expect child support when I decided to carry the baby to term. My choice, my responsibility. I realize not all women agree with this point of view, and I respect that opinion.
On the birth control front, though - there are condoms AND there are pills, yup. You can't tell if a woman's taken her pill, though. So if you want to be sure, 100% sure, that birth control was used, you have to wear a condom. It's just good sense. Likewise, any woman who absolutely doesn't want to get pregnant should take responsibility for the birth control herself. If you don't know, for a fact, that some reliable method of birth control was employed, then you've got no leg to stand on when later a pregnancy ensues. No amount of whining that "well, SHE could have used the Pill!" can change the fact that you made a choice and what happens next IS your responsibility.