A very simple search of the word "statistics" on ADOT's website pulls up all kinds of info... Gives several years worth, but only to 2011 - 19 killed in 18 Gila County crashes. So, yeah, though I didn't check 2009-2011, 36 sounds right.
My thoughts on your thoughts...
Good idea about sending the "name calling" letters back to the writers. If they wish to resubmit, they can. (Do the same with the ones not based on fact, if you can. A sticky point, I know.)
Many letters (and posts) seem to ramble on a bit. If you have several letters come in making the same point, why not edit them and print the comments actually pertinent to the point and run them all consecutively? You would save space for other letters and hopefully pacify the letter writers with the same point of view.
Speaking to that - why don't you edit the letters you receive anyway as it your right as Editor?
The back and forth - "strange and bizarre tirades" - that really is a source of constant amusement for me. Don't mind it, except that it leaves less space for other topics.
If you quit running letters that pertain to national issues, how can you continue to publish op-ed cartoons on national topics, for example? By not publishing certain topics, you digress in to a form of censorship. Unless you make that a clear policy, I suppose.
I would prefer you do not limit folks to one letter per month, as long as the letters follow your policy.
Most people are just sick and tired of the bashing, name calling, etc. and want some actual thoughtful discourse.
My final thought - I don't know how your Publisher feels about all of this, but, IMO, I hope he steps up also.
Don, I read the first few sentences of your reply (above) and gave up.
I know the definition of "opinion" and I know that of "fact." Even if the facts are dispensed by trusted (not newspaper letter writers) sources, I make a point to check facts before accepting them as truth & then offering those facts. I don't use "facts" from talk radio or talk TV or the internet message boards without doing the homework. I don't post a message unless I have checked. Weird, but just the way I am. I wish everyone else would do the same, but if wishes were horses...I be broke buying hay!
As you say to Ted (above) "Blah blah blah. All words, just words"
I agree with you, Wayne. I can't wade through many letters due to how rude and even irrational some writers sound. IMO, the paper does not stick to its' own policy. Maybe the Payson Roundup finds it is entertaining for customers to read the letters they print that contain untruths, etc. Some of them are amusing at times.
Don, you say..."Being prevented from speaking the truth as one sees it," - well, IMO, that may not necessarily be the truth in the real world. It is only, as you say, truth as one sees it - or chooses to see it. IMO, Wayne is not trying to censor anybody. He sounds just as sick and tired of rhetoric that goes nowhere as many others folks.
Ted, you had me with you, except for your foray into the name-calling.
Can't we all just get along while we agree to disagree with civility?
Well, here (below) is one untruth in your letter rebutted. That is untrue also.
Kennesaw law reads:
Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.permanent link to this piece of content
(a)
In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)
Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)
So, it is NOT mandatory "carry" - it is mandatory "have one on hand if your beliefs allow you to do so."
Well, two: President Obama is not Muslim regardless of what you want to believe. Or what you want others to believe.
You needn't be sorry. You should, however, try to understand what I am saying. I am saying what many others are saying...background checks for everyone will definitely NOT stop the violence totally, but it MAY...just MAY...save another's life and what is the harm in saving one person's life if it just means you have to wait another couple days to pick up your gun? I am expressing a very simple idea, so please don't read any more in to it.
He uses "unearned" as a descriptor also - different than undue? I don't think it means the same as taking advantage.
You said: "(If he were, guess which he'd say were 'exerting undue influence'. It wouldn't be those he likes.)" Maybe you know him personally, I do not. I have no idea which orgs he likes or doesn't like, or if he even cited any he likes or doesn't like...that wasn't his point or mine!
Bottom line - only in MY opinion, of course - is that he wants people to think for themselves. And wouldn't that be a good thing for our world!?
I find it hard to dissect each little nuance in a written letter or post. Sometimes it just isn't worth the effort and I don't have the time. How do you do it?!
What "red tape?" Aren't background checks already required in most cases?
It makes more sense to require a simple background check first. If Joe Blow is on the up and up, he won't get bent out of shape if he has to wait a couple days to get the gun he wants to buy.
I mean, come on, do you seriously think a bunch of other people are going to die because Joe Blow didn't get his gun 2 days earlier? But wait! Maybe Joe Blow is the shooter. Maybe he's ticked off at somebody and wants a gun so he can show who's boss. Maybe that is averted because he has to wait for his background check, so he cools off before he gets it and kills people.
We can maybe this, might that, back and forth and over and over. Bottom line is that one life is worth more than some person's right to have the gun of his choice NOW rather than after a short wait.
Nowhere in his letter does he "rip" any association he lists. He states the obvious - each organization can and does exert influence. That is the mission of all organizations - each organization puts forth its' agenda or views in order to influence others, whether it is a church, Scouts, political party, Olympic Committee or the Math Club at a H.S. He says, "What seems to be good for these organizations is not necessarily good for our country and/or state." "Not necessarily" means - to me - that some organizations may not give a hoot about what the majority of other people think or want, but other orgs do.
On the other hand, I think he missed a bit by stating that "independent voters" should do their homework before voting, because ALL voters, regardless of party affiliation, should do so before they vote. IMO anyway.
Nancy Volz 3 weeks, 1 day ago on Input on editorial policy
Input on editorial policy
I find Mr. Collins' letters thoughtful on the various topics. Rants? Not at all.
Nancy Volz 1 month ago on Desperate Gila County road officials hope public will give ADOT an earful
Desperate Gila County road officials hope public will give ADOT an earful
A very simple search of the word "statistics" on ADOT's website pulls up all kinds of info... Gives several years worth, but only to 2011 - 19 killed in 18 Gila County crashes. So, yeah, though I didn't check 2009-2011, 36 sounds right.
Nancy Volz 1 month ago on Editor wants help setting policy for letter writers
Editor wants help setting policy for letter writers
My thoughts on your thoughts... Good idea about sending the "name calling" letters back to the writers. If they wish to resubmit, they can. (Do the same with the ones not based on fact, if you can. A sticky point, I know.) Many letters (and posts) seem to ramble on a bit. If you have several letters come in making the same point, why not edit them and print the comments actually pertinent to the point and run them all consecutively? You would save space for other letters and hopefully pacify the letter writers with the same point of view. Speaking to that - why don't you edit the letters you receive anyway as it your right as Editor? The back and forth - "strange and bizarre tirades" - that really is a source of constant amusement for me. Don't mind it, except that it leaves less space for other topics. If you quit running letters that pertain to national issues, how can you continue to publish op-ed cartoons on national topics, for example? By not publishing certain topics, you digress in to a form of censorship. Unless you make that a clear policy, I suppose. I would prefer you do not limit folks to one letter per month, as long as the letters follow your policy. Most people are just sick and tired of the bashing, name calling, etc. and want some actual thoughtful discourse.
My final thought - I don't know how your Publisher feels about all of this, but, IMO, I hope he steps up also.
Nancy Volz 1 month ago on Do hate-filled letters meet criteria for publication?
Do hate-filled letters meet criteria for publication?
Don, I read the first few sentences of your reply (above) and gave up. I know the definition of "opinion" and I know that of "fact." Even if the facts are dispensed by trusted (not newspaper letter writers) sources, I make a point to check facts before accepting them as truth & then offering those facts. I don't use "facts" from talk radio or talk TV or the internet message boards without doing the homework. I don't post a message unless I have checked. Weird, but just the way I am. I wish everyone else would do the same, but if wishes were horses...I be broke buying hay! As you say to Ted (above) "Blah blah blah. All words, just words"
Nancy Volz 1 month, 1 week ago on Do hate-filled letters meet criteria for publication?
Do hate-filled letters meet criteria for publication?
I agree with you, Wayne. I can't wade through many letters due to how rude and even irrational some writers sound. IMO, the paper does not stick to its' own policy. Maybe the Payson Roundup finds it is entertaining for customers to read the letters they print that contain untruths, etc. Some of them are amusing at times. Don, you say..."Being prevented from speaking the truth as one sees it," - well, IMO, that may not necessarily be the truth in the real world. It is only, as you say, truth as one sees it - or chooses to see it. IMO, Wayne is not trying to censor anybody. He sounds just as sick and tired of rhetoric that goes nowhere as many others folks. Ted, you had me with you, except for your foray into the name-calling. Can't we all just get along while we agree to disagree with civility?
Nancy Volz 1 month, 1 week ago on Ban gun free zones
Ban gun free zones
Well, here (below) is one untruth in your letter rebutted. That is untrue also. Kennesaw law reads: Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.permanent link to this piece of content
(a)
In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)
Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)
So, it is NOT mandatory "carry" - it is mandatory "have one on hand if your beliefs allow you to do so."
Well, two: President Obama is not Muslim regardless of what you want to believe. Or what you want others to believe.
Nancy Volz 3 months, 4 weeks ago on No more compromise
No more compromise
You needn't be sorry. You should, however, try to understand what I am saying. I am saying what many others are saying...background checks for everyone will definitely NOT stop the violence totally, but it MAY...just MAY...save another's life and what is the harm in saving one person's life if it just means you have to wait another couple days to pick up your gun? I am expressing a very simple idea, so please don't read any more in to it.
Nancy Volz 3 months, 4 weeks ago on Undue, unwanted and unnecessary influence
Undue, unwanted and unnecessary influence
He uses "unearned" as a descriptor also - different than undue? I don't think it means the same as taking advantage. You said: "(If he were, guess which he'd say were 'exerting undue influence'. It wouldn't be those he likes.)" Maybe you know him personally, I do not. I have no idea which orgs he likes or doesn't like, or if he even cited any he likes or doesn't like...that wasn't his point or mine! Bottom line - only in MY opinion, of course - is that he wants people to think for themselves. And wouldn't that be a good thing for our world!? I find it hard to dissect each little nuance in a written letter or post. Sometimes it just isn't worth the effort and I don't have the time. How do you do it?!
Nancy Volz 3 months, 4 weeks ago on No more compromise
No more compromise
What "red tape?" Aren't background checks already required in most cases? It makes more sense to require a simple background check first. If Joe Blow is on the up and up, he won't get bent out of shape if he has to wait a couple days to get the gun he wants to buy. I mean, come on, do you seriously think a bunch of other people are going to die because Joe Blow didn't get his gun 2 days earlier? But wait! Maybe Joe Blow is the shooter. Maybe he's ticked off at somebody and wants a gun so he can show who's boss. Maybe that is averted because he has to wait for his background check, so he cools off before he gets it and kills people. We can maybe this, might that, back and forth and over and over. Bottom line is that one life is worth more than some person's right to have the gun of his choice NOW rather than after a short wait.
Nancy Volz 3 months, 4 weeks ago on Undue, unwanted and unnecessary influence
Undue, unwanted and unnecessary influence
Nowhere in his letter does he "rip" any association he lists. He states the obvious - each organization can and does exert influence. That is the mission of all organizations - each organization puts forth its' agenda or views in order to influence others, whether it is a church, Scouts, political party, Olympic Committee or the Math Club at a H.S. He says, "What seems to be good for these organizations is not necessarily good for our country and/or state." "Not necessarily" means - to me - that some organizations may not give a hoot about what the majority of other people think or want, but other orgs do. On the other hand, I think he missed a bit by stating that "independent voters" should do their homework before voting, because ALL voters, regardless of party affiliation, should do so before they vote. IMO anyway.