On letter writing style ( was Re: No Autism Link-)

[Guest guest]

If the purpose of this letter was to educate the reporter, this letter

appears to be a failure. Her non-response response can most likely

be translated into " I recieved your letter but I didn't read it, or

much of it. " It's a polite kiss-off.

My personal assesment is that the arguments presented in the letter

are solid and truthful. So what's wrong with it? Simple: it's too

long on assertion and too short on referenced facts. And it goes

against psychology for someone to read tombs of criticism directed at

them.

My purpose in pointing this out is not to grade Randy's paper, but to

give some advice to letter writers here about getting your information

pass the dense walls of ignorance out there. In general, keep your

letters short and to the point. The longer they are, the less chance

they will be read, especially if the subject of the letter doesn't

know you from Adam.

Lenny

Editor guy.

> > >

> > > From the article:

> > >

> > > " Well, they [the anti-vaccine hysterics] have succeeded in one

> > > respect - pushing autism into the limelight in the battle to get

more

> > > services. "

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Hoooo...hoooo...hoooo (remember the scene from Dangerous Liaisons!)

> > > Shame on the author for this remark. Cabbage heads, tomatoes, half

> > > eaten corn cobs - I throw them all at her for her insensitivity and

> > > her completely disgraceful comment.

> > >

> >

>