Wed, 24 Jul 1996

Good reason for anonymity

It looks like I touched a raw nerve with our friends Coelho and Ronci. What a violent reaction and so fast too! This will, however, from my side not start a "war" of letters to the Editor, I want to practice what I preach, so this will be my only answer.

1. I expressed only what some of us "old timers" feel about "hogging the column".

2. I knew that they would attack, questioning my desire to be anonymous, (The Editor however knows me well). Are they so small- minded not to understand that anonymity is not necessarily because of a fear to be known but that other reasons are possible?

Mr. Coelho asks us to write ourselves. Why should we? We are of the opinion that getting their opinion "once in a while" may be interesting, however, all the time -- boring. Why should we stop reading a paper we enjoy? We would enjoy it more if we could be saved from their "constant opinions".

Mr. Ronci confuses freedom of speech with being "overloud of his opinions". I am also not asking the editors to censor his opinion. I am only asking him for some measure of self- constraint. Why does he want us to always be punished with his views?

His use of the term "hysterical reaction" is also funny, there is no hysteria here, only utter boredom.

I will, again, reiterate that I will not start my own column by rebutting all his opinions, that's exactly what I try to convince them to stop doing.

I really still believe that giving them their own column would be the best solution; best located in a corner of the last page.

Thanks a lot folks, this is the last time you here from me unless, in the future, I may want to voice an opinion on a single issue, not on all feature stories of your paper.

Name and address

known to Editor