Letters for June 16, 2005
Hey, your questions for the man on the street are getting pretty lame. No offense. You’re the professionals, but I’m fallin’ asleep here. How about these 10? Pick one!
Why do you think you need what you want?
What was the last thing you did because everyone else did?
Why don’t you read?
Why do you watch television?
Why should anyone care what you think?
Why did you stop voting?
Why are you a human/lemming hybrid?
My personal favorite is this:
Why not order another round?
Re “Bad food review” and “Don’t dis your clients” (Letters, June 9):
As a regular reader of the RN&R, I was amused and somewhat appalled by the reaction to Katie Power’s review of the Gold n’ Silver Club, particularly the letter that said you are “morally and ethically” required to protect people who advertise in your publication. I’m a small-business owner, but I’ve never been offered this service, and I’m rather irritated to learn you’ve been giving it to other people.
Aside from offering “protection,” do you also write glowing stories about advertisers? If so, I’ll be calling your sales office on Monday. Or should I just schedule my front-page story with you? In light of the response to the review, perhaps I should point out that I’m only kidding. Finally, I just want to say that as a regular reader of your publication, I appreciate your independent views. As a local, I will continue to patronize the Gold n’ Silver, although I’m more likely to eat a cheeseburger then a veggie burger. I would also like to remind Katie Power that age only means experience.
Re “The veggie option” (Food finds, June 2):
I am writing to express my displeasure with the callous comments in the “The veggie option” review by Katie Power. Some of the comments in her article are simply mean-spirited. Some examples:
“It’s not that I am an animal activist or that I don’t like meat—I just don’t like meat from strange places. “Strange places” could include fast-food joints or random hole-in-the-wall restaurants. They’re basically anywhere that I don’t cook or see the food prepared. I’ve been working in the food industry for five years, so I know what goes on in the kitchens of these types of places, and I realize that customers never know what part of the animal they might be eating or, in some cases, even what animal they are eating.”
This entire paragraph is unnecessary, is self-contradictory, and implies that the quality of the meat at the Gold n’ Silver is somehow suspect because the author has not personally witnessed the preparation of the food. That’s crazy.
“When our waitress appeared with our menus, she was a happy, older lady, which seems to be a requirement to get a job there.” This is simply an insult to the staff and betrays the writer’s low professional standards. Sarcasm as humor is a tool of the inexperienced writer.
“For those who aren’t afraid to eat meat in weird places, there are a lot of options, and since it’s a locals’ place, you probably know what type of animal you are consuming.”
Finishing the article with this comment gives the whole piece the feel of a back-handed compliment. Perhaps if the writer could stick to a review of her actual dining experience without references to her own dietary idiosyncrasies, readers could get a clear and fair review of the establishment.
Because of my long-time friendship with the proprietor, the article was personally offensive. But that notwithstanding, the article is simply unfair.
A written apology is in order. Until then, my estimation of the value of the Reno News & Review has diminished.
Hook ignorant of facts
Re “Megan’s law isn’t working to protect children” (Right Hook, June 9):
Michael Lafferty leads readers to believe that the half of California sex offenders returned to prison had somehow reoffended against children. But the vast majority of sex offenders were returned for so-called “status offenses,” that is violations of their conditions of parole, like repeated violations of curfews, alcohol and drug violations—or property crimes related to those conditions. Nationally, only 5.3 percent of sex offenders reoffend in a sexual crime over the first three years out of prison according to the Justice Department.
In the year 2004 in Northern Nevada, virtually 100 percent of the sex crimes committed were committed by people who’d never been arrested before for a sex crime.