Some phrases, sentences and paragraphs for Letter to the Editor

Some useful phrases to include in the letter

• after reading your Sept. 29 article on
• cartoonist Harris Mehboob should be aware that
• an affront to those of us who
• did a slow burn when I read difference of opinion
• how can anyone state, as did Lala Zaidi (June 3), that fail to agree
• I agree wholeheartedly with
• I am horrified by the Ang. 11 report
• I am one of the many “misguided” people who was outraged by
• I am puzzled by the reference to the
• I am writing on behalf of long-term effects of
• I found the short story in your September issue to be
• I disagree with the Reverend Prime Minister premise Feb. 7)
• I must take issue with infuriating to see that
• I really enjoyed who said
• I take exception to the opinions expressed by
• I strongly object in response to a July 3 letter writer
• I was disturbed/incensed/ pleased/angry/disappointed to read that it seems to me letter writer Zulfiqar Bajwa’s suggestion (Aug. 9) was intriguing, but neglected to mention one side of the story
• on the one hand/on the other hand point in dispute
• read with great/considerable interest
• presented a false picture
• regarding Senator Sam Blundel’s new bill for the hearing-impaired recipe for disaster
• the article on women in trades did much to
• several letter writers have commented upon

SENTENCES

• A Dec. 9 writer is incorrect in saying that the Regional Transit Board was abolished several years ago; we are, in fact, alive and well.
• I am writing to express my appreciation for your excellent coverage of City Council meetings on the local ground water issue.
• I commend you for your Aug. 11 editorial on magnet schools.
• I disagree with Elizabeth Saunders’ Apr. 5 column on city-supported recycling.
• I look forward to seeing a published retraction of the incorrect information given in this article.
• In Daily Dawn Dec. 9 column on the living will, she uses statistics that have long since been discredited.
• In his December 1 Counterpoint, “Tax Breaks for the Rich,” Gerald Tetley suggests that out of fear of giving the rich a break, we are actually cutting off our noses to spite our face.
• I was disappointed that not one of the dozens who wrote to complain about the hike in municipal sewer rates noticed that the rates are actually lower than they were ten years ago.
• Many thanks for your unpopular but eminently sane editorial stand on gun control (July 2).
• Please consider the cumulative effect of such legislation on our children.
• Please do not drop Flora Lewis/Cal Thomas/Ellen Goodman/George Will from your editorial pages.
• Several important factors were omitted from your Apr. 6 article on wide area telephone service.
• The writer of the Mar. 16 letter against triple trailers seemed to have little factual understanding of semi-truck traffic and professional truck drivers.
• Your Aug. 3 editorial on workers’ compensation overlooked a a crucial factor.
• Your June 29 editorial on child care failed to mention one of the largest and most effective groups working on this issue.

PARAGRAPHS

• Has anyone noticed that the city has become overrun with dogs in the last several years? Most of these dogs have no collars and run in packs of five to eight dogs. If I had small children, I’d worry when they played outdoors Where have these dogs come from? Whose problem is it? The city council’s? The health department’s? The police department’s?
• Your story on the newest technology in today’s emergency rooms featured the views of hospital administrators, medical care-givers, and manufacturers’ representatives. Nowhere was a patient mentioned. Is overlooking the patient also a feature of today’s emergency rooms? (If it is, it’s not new.)
•  To those of you who have been expressing yourself in these pages about the presence of wild geese in the city parks: Hello! A park is supposed to be natural. It is not meant to be as clean as your kitchen floor.
•  It has messy leaves and gravel and bugs and, yes, goose grease. If you can’t handle nature in the raw, there’s always your back yard.
•  Count at least six women (the undersigned) who were outraged at your “news story” on the recently appointed Episcopalian bishop for our area. You devoted several lines early on in the story (thus implying their relative importance) to Ms. Dinah Morris’s clothes, hairstyle, and even the color of her fingernail polish. Do you do this for new male bishops?
•  There was an error in your otherwise excellent article about the Lamprey Brothers Moving and Storage. In addition to brothers Henry, Colin, and Stephen (whom you mentioned), there is also brother Michael, a full partner.
•  A flurry of letter writers urges us to rally against the proposed congressional pay raise. I wonder if they understand the protection that such a raise would give us against special interest groups. Let’s give this one a closer look. It may actually be a sheep in wolf’s clothing.
•  I commend Meg Bishop for the use of “people first” language in her Jan. 2 column. By using expressions such as “people with severe disabilities” rather than “the severely disabled” and “people with quadriplegia” rather than “quadriplegics,” Bishop helps change the way society views people with disabilities.