LETTERS  PCR #205      (February 23--29, 2004)

•  Pastor Wallace on "The Passion of the Christ"
•  Reader, Mia, moved to write on "The Passion of the Christ"
•  Prof. Paul Bearer II needs your help!
•  Michael Smith on Nicholas King's, "P.C. in the Modern World"
•  Christian Dumais on Nicholas King's, "P.C. in the Modern World"
•  Will Moriaty on Nicholas King's, "P.C. in the Modern World"
•  Reader inquiry regarding Will's "History of Aviation in Florida" series (and Will's response)
•  Andy Lalino replies to Terence's and Will's feedback in Lettercol #204 (and Terence's response)

Letters to the EditorWe welcome your feedback.


I really enjoyed reading over your review. Rev. Wallace? (Re: in my review of "The Passion of the Christ" I referred to Mike, a new friend and frequent sounding board, as "Rev. Wallace".--N) That sounds so old, but that doesn't matter as much as the effect that this movie had on you as well as so many others.

I saw the movie Thursday night and I know that this is as close as to the real thing we have or may ever see to the last 12 hours of Christ; unless someone else has a "Passion" like Mel to spend more money and more time in research on Roman torture. I believe if we took the time to study more, we would probably find out to our surprise that even this movie couldn’t even compare to the suffering that Christ went thru for you and I.

Over all, it was an excellent depiction of the last 12 hours of Christ. As you, I would not recommend this movie for entertainment purposes, but I would recommend this movie for someone wanting a more realistic view of what Christ went thru for us and the compassion that he had for the human race. I would like to stress the point that this is not just another story, but recorded history.

Mike Wallace
Youth Pastor

Mike, thanks for writing in! The recorded history shows the Romans as brutal torturers and executioners, and that is what I think Mel wanted everyone to appreciate. My problem with the film is one of balance: although Gibson understandably assumes a lot of foreknowledge from the audience, the movie seems to be missing huge chunks of narrative flow when no good reason for the tragic events is ever presented, nor any satisfying epilogue. ---Nolan


Thanks for your excellent, well-written and most salient review of Mel's homage to sadism (Re: "The Passion of the Christ"--N). Mel is riddled with phobic reactions to conspiracies and (pardon the expression) "back-stabbing." It is far better to focus on what Jesus' love exemplified than the plight and the pre-ordained sacrifice that God supposedly placed on him. Unfortunately, mankind prefers to focus on and practice violence and sadism, as opposed to the love and tolerance Jesus' words and actions embodied. Jesus will now symbolize violence and sadism and hatred to the millions who will see this travesty. If Jesus had a grave, he would be turning in it!

Affirming Peace,
Mia Adams

Mia, thanks so much for writing, and of course, I'm in complete agreement. I predict after a phenomenal opening weekend, "Passion" will fade quickly as word gets out that this is NOT a casual "date movie"!

Like you, I'm distressed that director Gibson decided to focus soley on the violence and not the message. --Nolan


Dear Fright Fans,
It is a crucial time for our production. We are closer than ever to actually launching the new Creature Feature. We desperately need your help. Your comments are extremely important to UPN44, so I have sent you all a link to the feedback page on their website. Please let them know that you want to see Creature Feature come back! Thank You for your support!

Please click here: http://upn44tv.com/feedback/. I'll be lurking for you soon!

Prof. Paul Bearer II

Visit our website at www.paulbearerproductions.com


I enjoyed reading Nicholas' piece on "PC in the Modern World". After reading Will's letter, then Christian's later in the day, I felt that I had to say something also.

Being in my early 40's, I've experienced a lot of words that were used in the spirit of political correctness. Funny that Will mentions the "D" word for Italians. My father tells a story of how, as a young boy, I came home crying from the playground because another boy had called me a "Dago." I didn't even understand he said it because I was Italian. It was just that the way he said it made it sound like a bad thing.

In the mid-60s, we (white children) were always taught to use the word "Negro" when speaking about blacks. Then, in the '70s, the word "black" was deemed appropriate. In the '80s, "African-American" became the term of choice.

Words, by themselves, cannot harm you. Even when spit at you with venom, they only cut you if you let them. I've had more then my share of run-ins with irate people, especially in my time as a theatre manager. I can't tell you how many times I was called fat. It didn't bother me. Hey, I know I'm fat. But the way that it was used toward me was tantamount to them calling me nigger had I been black! In my life I've learned that words are just that.......words. It's how you use them or, more to the point, how you HEAR them, that makes them what they are to YOU.

Michael Smith

One and all: I was finally able to reach Nicholas who is preparing a response to the outpouring over his piece regarding language. He is both surprised and moved at the emotional and meaningful commentary he managed to stir up (I am too, frankly).

To Michael, you basically hit it on the head with your recalled schoolyard incident: you learned that you were apparently, "a Dago", that it was a bad thing, there was nothing you could do about it, and it was now being used as an insult to empower your tormentors. Fortunately, you were able to overcome it, but you can see how other school-age kids who had to grow up listening to themselves being consistently referred to in a derogatory fashion created a class of victims and victimizers very early on.

Sure, AS ADULTS, we've largely grown a thicker skin over petty insults, but words can still hurt as the little kid inside you screams every time you hear a racial or minority epithet once spat out on the playground. (You and I didn't gain a lot of weight until well into adulthood...)

Nick is simply voicing an opinion shared by many in his youthful group. If I read it right, and Nick will correct me if I'm wrong, the question is to what degree should language be controlled by legislation or societal edict? And how do we avoid "knee-jerk" reactions by either side without total censorship? ---Nolan

Hey, Nolan!
I have a million things to do as the new semester is starting over here, but damn it if Nicholas King's piece didn't get my mind moving. I decided to respond with a few thoughts on the subject:

It’s important to understand that when someone writes a piece about political correctness as a tool for censorship, there’s a certain inherent irony when the writer chooses to use “N-word” instead of “nigger”. Within the context of what King wrote, using it would’ve been acceptable, just like he used “mick” or “cracker” to make the inversion of his original point.

Maybe I’ve been too removed from the States, but English words have a different weight over here in Eastern Europe, both socially and academically. For instance, take the word “cunt”, which tends to be a severe no-no in America, is used heavily in Ireland and Scotland; not so much as a negative term towards women or female genitalia, but with the flexibility and creativity as Americans manipulate “fuck”. It’s a trend that’s being picked up by Europeans using English as their second language.

In Poland, a lot of words are translated incorrectly from English to Polish, especially when it comes to popular movies, so a word like “bitch” (which no longer carries the weight it once did negatively and has been morphed into a positive word to convey female empowerment) are translated into “kurwa” (a word so negative, you don’t ever want to say it within earshot of a Polish woman).

Is any of this wrong? No, it’s the natural evolution of the language, as Europeans are able to distance themselves from the cultural context of the word, thus words that don’t mean anything to us mean a lot to them and vice-versa. Much like future generations of Americans will stop projecting weight onto certain words that we do, as there will be a whole truckload of new words for them to nitpick.

As for people policing language…there’s a certain “linguistic commerce” that comes with any language. Much like if a consumer doesn’t like a product, he won’t buy it; we choose what words to support or not. If we don’t support certain words, they will phase out over time. For instance, even though our government tried to get the American people to use “freedom” instead of “French”, it was pretty much rejected by the majority (though, I do miss “freedom kissing”). Basically, words that remain with us – however annoyingly politically correct they are – remain because the people have chosen to accept them, not because they were forced to.

This isn’t to say that political correctness doesn’t reflect a society with a severe lack of humor, it’s to point out that sometimes words change not to satisfy certain groups, but because the language is naturally evolving by the will of the people speaking it.

Here's "hoping" I never have to use so many quotation marks in an e-mail again.

Have a great day.
Christian A. Dumais
Wroclaw, Poland

Chris! Thanks so much for taking the trouble to write, my friend. Yes, I noticed that business where he held back about the "N-word", but I think he was doing that for my benefit as a safety valve, also he probably figured once people read the word "nigger" in any context, they'd freak and wouldn't read anything beyond that, therefore defeating the purpose of communicating, therefore furthering the irony about political correctness, thus his point!

I realize what you're saying about the evolution of language, and I agree, of course, but I think what Nicholas was getting at (albeit over-simplified) was not so much how words change over time, but how charges of bad language are used as a WEAPON to PUNISH by opportunistic activists in authority, many times arbitrarily, because certain segments of society ABUSE free speech regularly to attack others. The net result is everyone's just getting a little too sensitive.

The following is not a great example, but it's in the local headlines at the moment: You remember the insanely popular Tampa shock-jock "Bubba the Love Sponge"? Been on for years and years. He just got FIRED from 98 Rock for "indecent language". His was the Number 1 radio show in the morning, despite several hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines due to his on-air coarseness. It wasn't until a Clear Channel executive was commanded to appear before Congress that things got ugly. Now you can't even find a mention of Bubba on the station's website. So much for free speech.

OK, that's not exactly the same thing, Nick's topic is much broader, with hints of racial prejudice as a core issue.

Will Moriaty was also stirred to write over these ideas. Read on... --Nolan


Nicholas my man, re: Nicholas Rex "P.C.in the Modern World" --N) allow me to chime in.

First, I really enjoyed your column, but second, let's expand on things just a little more.

"To be politically correct in this modern world is no longer suggested, it’s mandatory."

That is true to a limited degree in the American work place and in institutions such as public education, but it is not mandatory from a Constitutional perspective. You have a right to express yourself anyway that you choose under the Constitution, but that does not prohibit your expression from being censored by others be they public or private entities. Wanna use sling racial insults at home or with your friends? Knock yourself out pal, but in a public setting use some smarts.

There is a right and a wrong time and manner to exercise this wonderful Constitutional right. Using the "N" word for blacks, or the "S" word for Hispanics , or the "D" word for Italians or the "R" word for Southern whites, or the "Y" word for Northerners in a vitriolic and disrespectful manner to their face or within earshot is not only inappropriate behavior (I am using the premise that the people being addressed have done nothing to hurt the person using the slur), but could end up putting the name caller in physical danger as well. It is just not good policy to sling epithets like those on a public basis if we are to ever hope to get any form of domestic tranquility in this great Nation. You don't have to control your thinking, but you can control your behavior, and one day such control may save your life or save you a great deal of embarrassment or ruin.

"There are too many groups that tell you you can’t say this or you can’t say that. To be completely honest, this pisses me off to no end."

It does me too, Nicholas. But remember that you have the power to disobey them or ignore them. Ignoring them is the easy way out, but disagreeing or disobeying them will require courage, smarts, rationality and tenacity on your own part. Are you willing to step up to that challenge?

"For at least three decades now, the N-word has been the one thing a white person can never say to a black person."

Of course they can! But I plead with you to contemplate what I stated two paragraphs up.

"Call me a cracker or a mick, it’s fine. Those words mean absolutely nothing to me. Because I learned long ago that words don’t mean anything except what the person saying them puts into them and what the person hearing them perceives."

Eloquently stated Nicholas.

Just remember, there may be someone who uses those very words with the intent to harm you and you may suddenly put a weight on those words you never did before and want to kick their booty into next week. Nolan and I both have about four hundred years of "cracker" each in our bloodline and I take the word as a compliment - - MOST times. There are some who use this term with as much hatred as the clown who slings the "N" word, and guess what? Suddenly my perception of what a Cracker is has become challenged and I'm not complimented, I'm offended. Why? Because the person used the word as a means to hurt me. (Incidentally I'm a Frenchman in heritage so you can imagine as of late the wonderful time I'm having listening to people spout off about the French - - my wife is the "M" word of the family). Bottom line - - it was the thought and not so much the word. But the word was a vehicle nevertheless.

"Masculinity has been replaced by sharing one’s feelings."

Define masculinity.

"Anything a woman says is considered right while anything a man says is considered offensive."

That is too broad and general a statement to be defendable or believable. Where do these offenses take place? At home? At work? At school? In the bedroom? What source do you cite this from? Have you personally suffered from this perceived or real infraction?

"People have begun to police language"

There is nothing wrong with policing one's language and actions. In fact I encourage it. The world does not revolve around either you or me Nicholas. We both have an obligation and responsibility to take others feelings into account and pray that they demonstrate the same mutual respect for us. Do not use a cop out on me and use the old "well if they do it I'm gonna do it" routine. You can rise above that and be a truly better person than those types. Just don't be one of them!

"Nothing is more disturbing or more worthy of condemnation than for being a man in the U.S.A."

Where are you getting this thinking from? Name your source. You don't believe that in this day and age we don't as a society still respect our Founding Fathers? Or the Wright Brothers? Or a myriad of male sports figures simply because they're men? Have you personally been attacked or condemned for being a man? What do YOU hold to be true about yourself Nicholas? If you lead a good, honest, fair and productive life, what other nit wits may think about you really shouldn't matter to bother you at all. Be confident in who you are and all this crazy hooey will bounce of you like Indian arrows slung at a Naval destroyer.

"Look at television. TV families (in the traditional sense) are comprised of an ethereal wife who knows everything and the dumb schmuck who was lucky enough to find her. This is not right. Yet this is the world we live in. This is the world of Political Correctness. This is the world of Censorship."

The world of censorship is also the world that needs to put its foot down when sleaze bees like Justin and Janet give a free peek show during prime time. And what my generation knew as the proverbial "traditional" or "nuclear" family has in most part sadly gone the way of the DoDo. But I ask in this case, what t.v. shows do you entertain to come to this conclusion? "Married With Children"? Definitely! Change the channel Nicholas - - there's Discovery, Learning, History, Food and Gardening. I gave up on prime time a while back and did it officially this year.

If you think you are going to ever get an accurate portrayal of life or even hope to see hints of how to set up your own moral compass, do not look at prime time television as you will be sorely disappointed. There's still shows where the man of the family is a good and responsible role model. Look at Hank Hill on "King of the Hill",.Not only is he white, Southern and Christian, he is an example of a zillion truly good male role models just like him in the United States that do exist and are people to be admired and respected - - there are zillions of good women out there too --maybe under your own roof!

I appreciate your candor and comments and value your contribution to our 'zine. Your grandfather would be proud of you! Thanks again.

Wiliam Moriaty

I haven't heard back from Nicholas yet, so really can't speak on his behalf, but I am startled and pleasantly amazed that gifted writers such as you, Christian and Mike found so much to touch on regarding Nick's topic. I myself thought it was a little too broad to get this reaction, but what do I know. As soon as I hear something I'll post it up for further examination.---Nolan


Dear Mr. Moriaty,
Today I happened on your web site where you give a brief but comprehensive and very interesting story on the history of aviation in Florida.

I was an Air Corps navigator in World War II and had several Army instructor navigators who were trained by Pan American Airways in Coral Gables, I believe. I was trained at Turner Field, Albany, Georgia in 1942. Can you tell me when, why, and how the first Army navigation cadets happened to be sent to Pan Am for training? I suspect it was because the Army had no air navigation training schools capable of handling its requirements. Would the University of Miami have a history of Army navigators' training by Pan Am there and who might I contact? I know the crew position of navigator did not exist in the Army Air Corps prior to 1940.

Would be most grateful for any information you might give me. Thanks.

Frank D. Murphy


Dear Mr. Murphy:
It is an honor to hear from you and above all else I thank you for the sacrifices you made for this great Nation during the Second World War.

From what I could glean in my research, Pan American Airways was indeed involved because of its pilots' navigating abilities. Regrettably, I have no answers for the when, how and why portion of your question. You may want to contact the University of Miami at http://www.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH_Main/ and see if they have an archives or special collections library that might be able to provide you with such information.

Interestingly enough, my mother's first husband, Colonel Preston Pender II may have been a C.O. at Turner Field about the time you were there. He often flew missions from there to the European theater with his bomb squadron.

I sincerely hope that the University can possibly assist you with your request.

Thanks for reading our online publication, and again, thanks for your service to our country.

William Moriaty


Readers: due to an editorial snafu at "press-time", the earliest edition of this week's PCR only carried half of Andy Lalino's Letter to the Editor regarding PCR #204. The entire piece is now restored, below. I apologize for this oversight and for any inconvenience this caused.---Nolan

(Re: PCR Lettercol #204 --N) You're ab right that I don't know you or your history pretty much at all. That being said, however, I was fairly observant in the late '80s and did take note of the phenomenon of the time when bands such as (the 'newer') Ministry were replacing New Wave groups, for example Ultravox, in terms of "alternative" popularity. Hell, I recall that fateful day in 1989 when I patronized the Alternative Record Store in Tampa and asked if they had any Simple Minds CD. The clerk (who had a pony tail) practically laughed and said that stuff doesn't sell anymore. He directed me to the 'import' section and showed me his token Simple Minds merchandise: a 12" of "Waterfront '89", and then suggested a CD by Camper Van Beethoven (which I'm sure will make it on your list).

Judging from your '80s selections, you fit into the "Post-Modern" mold quite snugly, whether you're in denial or not. That's not necessarily a bad thing; I like late-'80s alternative too, however as I stated in my letter, I still maintained a deep love for the early/mid-'80s sound (it wasn't all synthpop) whereas the Post-Moderns willingly abandoned it, in favor of the new crop of guitar-driven and industrial bands. But, hey; things change (Booooo!). To my surprise here in 2004, it's actually mainstream demand, not the college radio crowd, that resurrected bands such as Berlin and Kajagoogoo for VH1's "Bands Reunited" show.

I read your personal "musical history" in your response, and found it almost completely different from mine. In the '70s and very early '80s ('80-'82) I was an album rocker, happily playing "Yessongs" on my bright pink portable 8-track player. I didn't realize it at the time, but I was developing a real affinity for Britrock. Those bands that I listened to as Dungeons and Dragons background music, The Moody Blues and The Who, transitioned, in 1983, to New Wave, with groups like U2 and Big Country now turning me on (back then I would classify myself as primarily a New Romantic). Unlike most of the PCR staff writers, I personally did not sustain my interest in blues, '50s, '60s, or '70s rock, easy listening (Sinatra, Tony Bennett), classical, or any other type of music (except movie soundtracks) other than "alternative" rock. I find that weird and artsy music, preferably penned & performed by pale, skinny Brits, was very much to my liking. Plus, the videos were cool; they were like short films one actually wanted to watch. Being that New Wave/Synthpop tends to sound "futuristic", it did not inspire me to listen to more "soulful" music genres, such as the blues. Sorry.

And yes, I have been criticized and crucified by my "limited" musical taste. There; you have more ammo.

I'm curious to know if there are any "Crappy Synthpop" bands you do give a thumbs-up to. Surely one of them, possibly Japan or Visage, have some artistic integrity. I may take issue of your statement that early '80s New Wave is derivative of the late '70s sound. That's somewhat true, with Bowie, Gary Numan, Tangerine Dream, and The Buggles laying the synth groundwork for later bands, however I recall the late '70s sound being primarily guitar driven (Elvis Costello, Nick Lowe, Television, The Clash, etc.). The "classic" Synthpop sound was ushered in a bit later with bands like A Flock of Seagulls and Men Without Hats really setting down the law.

You pose an interesting oddservation by the claim that 'New Wave' should be applied to the mid/late '70s punk derivatives. In your example you noted Blondie, Joy Division, Television, Talking Heads, The Buzzcocks, and The Jam. For the record, Blondie was a rare group that fit different classifications: rock, disco, New Wave, Punk, and pop. In my opinion, Talking Heads are a New Wave band, mostly due to their sound, sense of humor, and imagery in their music videos. The Buzzcocks I'd say are closer to Punk, however Joy Division and The Jam are a bit tougher to categorize. Out of convenience I think most people would classify all those bands, with the possible exception of The Buzzcocks, as New Wave, but I think you are correct when you state that those bands "who don't quite fit the Punk mold", such as The Jam, Television, and Joy Division, may indeed require a classification that would not group them in with a band like Kajagoogoo. Again, I state it's probably an issue of convenience.

As far as your issue that the term "New Wave" was hijacked later on by "Crappy Synthpop" bands, there's probably little or nothing one can do about it; it's already in our lexicon and perceptions. I love the term and hope it stays just where it is.

You state that you personally don't dig the "nostalgia" on N'sPCR. I think of it more as a struggle for honesty and less a melancholy reflection of the past. No one is going to tell me that genre motion pictures produced from 1987 to today are better than those of previous decades. That's simply a lie, perpetrated by people who simply accept the fact that studios have released movies made for their consumption, and who don't really give a shit that they are on par with the quality of genre films of bygone eras.

I remember the late '80's when B-movies, which were on the decline, began to get really silly ("C.H.U.D. 2: Bud the C.H.U.D.", "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" and "Basket Case" sequels; the list is endless), and due to that schlepness, the result is B-movies were no longer being played in movie theaters, and were relegated to VHS (now DVD) and cable TV. It was a rotten time, the '90s were horror-less and equally rotten, and it's still rotten to this day, although things seem to be getting a bit better. I will gladly take on any Crazed Fanboy who wishes to defend the late '80s, '90s, or this new millennium in terms of genre quality vs. the '30s, '50s, '60s, '70s, and early/mid '80s (note the dull '40s is absent). You'd be in for a melee the likes you never seen...

Did I digress?

BTW, Joy Division reigns and quit spelling a-ha's name wrong!!!!

Will Moriaty on Andy's K__t C_bain
Again, I have to apologize for the necessity of using Kur- (I can't bear to even spell it...) - oh, you know who's name in this response. As some of you may know, I only like to include pop culture icons in my writing that are worthy of mention (the aforementioned is not).

I'm sorry, Will, but I have to be especially harsh on the aforementioned and his band. I apologize if I've offended, and perhaps I did go overboard, but the aforementioned has to take some responsibility (well, I guess he did) for helming a musical course that went over the falls in the early '90s.

If the aforementioned was indeed inspired by "select" '80s music (Terence claims he was influenced by the likes of The Pixies; BTW, Terence, I heard they're getting back together) you could have fooled me. The '80s was largely about synthesizers, wearing make-up, artsy lyrics, and having cool hair. The aforementioned was smelly, scroungy, flannel shirt-wearing, brash and - well - grungy. The '80s were the total opposite: clean-cut, effeminate, fun, colorful, and European. Are we seeing a culture clash here?

If the aforementioned had any sense, he would have hired a keyboard player for the band, and he himself would have tried to look like Nick Rhodes instead of the cigarette-chomping, 5 O' clock shadow-sporting drug addict he was. Kurt, lose the flannel shirt and dress like Spandau Ballet, okay?

MTV's "120 Minutes" had no business playing Nirvana's videos back then. They should have stuck to format and kept playing Depeche Mode and Echo & the Bunnymen. Look what disaster they hath wrought.

I suppose - unwillingly - that musical trends due rise and fall, sometimes for no apparent reason. To this day I'm still perplexed by that fateful year of 1987 when rap and heavy metal conquered the music scene. I mean, how do you go from The Eurythmics to The Beastie Boys? How?!?

Speaking for myself, I cannot and will not let the status quo go unchecked, which is why I'm constantly writing + griping about the subject of genre entertainment gone awry in hopes that it changes some minds (which I think is every true Crazed Fanboy's solemn duty; especially if you're rooted in the '70s). At least in the horror arena, it seems like that's actually happening. There seem to be a new bumper crop of filmmakers who are genuinely influenced by the Romero's and Cronenbergs, and who legitimately wish to pick up the torch that was dropped in 1987. That's a very good thing. Whether we can re-create the Golden Years of genre film (1977-1986) remains to be seen, but things seem to be turning around, hopefully for the better. Do I think today's filmmakers are on the same level as Spielberg, dePalma, and Carpenter, not a chance, but hey, at least they're doing things.

Welcome back Brandon Jones! Good to see "Brandon's Splash Page" back on N'sPCR again!

- Andy [Lalino]


Will and Mike, and all,
Regarding the PCR Lettercol #204, thanks for all the praise and defending of my column. But you have to remember Andy and anyone else has as much of a right to bash me or my column as I do them. We can't forget that if PCR is democratic that we don't play favorites or have certain hierarchies. That, and I think it's to Andy's credit, without being too egotistical, that he stood up to me at all. He is still blindsided by my opinion of what makes '80s music. Because, unless he didn't notice, I did include New Wave bands: XTC, Echo and the Bunnymen. Anyhow, he has his opinion, let him say it. That's why we are here.

But Andy, just one question: since when did fans of indie-rock, punk, real New Wave, and so called post-modern men have pony tails? Oh, and you and me actually agree on something: Yes is a great band -- well, at least that three run of albums they had in the 70s--The Yes Album, Fragile, and Close to the Edge. Everything they did after that was really embarrassing (save maybe Going For The One) and don't even get me started on the sell-out song, "Owner of A Lonely Heart". Of course, most prog-rock got bad after awhile, even ELP. After putting out the sometimes too hokey, but nevertheless great albums: Emerson, Lake, And Palmer, Tarkus, Trilogy, and Brain Salad Surgery (with an awesome H.R. Giger album cover) they gave us what? Love Beach. Why god, why. Answer: follow the Sex Pistols and quit at your best moments.

Anyway, that's my say.

Terence Nuzum

(William Moriaty declined to respond. ---Nolan)

To send an email to Letters to the Editor write to: Crazedfanboy1@aol.com.  Any emails sent to this address will be assumed intended for publication unless you specifically instruct me not to. I can and do respond privately, if that is your preference. Frequently, it's both ways.---Nolan

Back to top

Closing this browser window will return you to the homepage