Longer letters more lucid
In response to two letters of October 27 urging brevity as the only desirable element in a letter, I would like to ask how many readers bother with letters that do not interest them?
Surely one reads only those of interest, while skimming over others.
Brevity, which is advocated as a standard, would result in the most interesting and rewarding letters being eliminated.
Fortunately, the editor realises that many of his readers still enjoy a lucidly presented argument, of necessity set out in a longer letter.
Those who do not wish to read these are under no compulsion to do so but they should not presume to deprive others of enjoying them.
Writers such as Stan Hood, Russ Hay and John Archer are favourites for those of us who appreciate logic and literacy, thankfully not yet banished from our daily newspaper.
Taking a longer view
To the many people who have taken pains to seek me out to express appreciation of my long and wonderfully balanced, informative letters published in the Chronicle, I should reassure you they will continue, editor willing ...
There has been recent correspondence about brevity in letters ("Keep them brief", "Shorter is better", Chronicle, October 27).
I support the right of those writers to express their opinion, just as I am supporting my own right to my opinion now.
One writer critical of longer letters, mentioned me by name.
To that person, here is some sage advice - You don't have to read my long letters. Just check the signature and move on. I shan't be offended.
Incidentally, I won't reciprocate by doing you the disservice of mentioning your own name in a letter of mine.
It beggars belief there are people so intolerant that they appear to insist that everybody should communicate only in the way they decide.
Sorry, but I write when I have something to say, and then I do my readers the great courtesy of providing as much relevant information as can be fitted in to the 350-word limit.
I have been a studious type all my life - a nerd, if you like - which means often I (doubtless alongside other writers of long letters) have more than 350 words worth of fabulously interesting and relevant information on whatever the subject is.
I also courteously read others' long letters. The fact I get stopped in the street and praised for what I have written has to mean something.
I respectfully suggest those who insist on short letters only, should have a re-think - they surely can't meaningfully advance their own knowledge by merely reading a trite little sentence or two.
Rates set to rise
The Chronicle headline of October 26 read: "Outrageous fees anger tip users"; no headline has ever read "Outrageous rate rises anger WDC ratepayers".
Reading between the lines of comments made by councillors on kerbside collection, a decision is already made for Option C.
The survey is just that. It is non-binding and $10,000 spent and what a load of refuse - only 15 per cent of surveys in by due date so it is extended by a fortnight.
Quote by council waste adviser: "We're usually very good with this type of thing in Whanganui, we punch above our weight."
Maybe the other 70 per cent didn't receive their survey?
What does that decision mean for the ratepayers?
(1) A 10 per cent plus increase in rates.
(2) The ratepayers also will still have their pockets picked for extra and continual annual rate increases as they do today.
Yet, the Whanganui ratepayers' debt continues to rise.
Also, why do ratepayers who do not use or require a kerbside rubbish disposal collection still have to pay?