Letters to the Editor
Spam I am: Regarding Alan Prendergast's "Mr. Spam Man," in the January 29 issue, and with a tip of the hat to naughty language and apologies to Dr. Seuss:
My ISP is clogged and crammed
With tons of Mr. Richter's spam.
The latest diet pill and porn,
Viagra, babes and mortgage loans.
Would you like them in your box?
Would you like them if they're Scott's?
Not in my box, not if they're Scott's,
I do not like e-mails of spam,
I do not like them, Scott, goddamn!
You do not know how sick I am
Of penis pumps and other scams,
Of pyramids and self-employ,
Of fast-buck schemes and bedroom toys.
Would you like them in your face?
With no return address to trace?
Not in my face, without a trace,
I do not like e-mails of spam,
I do not like them, Scott, goddamn!
Oh, Eliot? Come see to Scott:
Just look at all the names he's got.
If you are finished with The Street,
Put him in jail and press "delete."
We do not like your fucking spam,
We do not like it, Scott, goddamn!
The litter of the law: I was dismayed to see a profile of a known spammer featured on your site. Surely you must be aware of the adage that any publicity is good publicity. By providing free publicity to a known spammer, you have contributed to the ongoing spam problem. Thanks for nothing.
via the Internet
Cover up: Your middle-finger cover for "Spam I Am" was very over the top. We have one of your boxes here at our business, and we were forced to remove all of your papers. This is not what we want our customers to look at as they enter our business; a large majority of our customers have children.
Center of the storm: Patricia Calhoun's "Hot and Bothered," in the January 29 issue, was a great article on the Tracy Baker fiasco. What an ass for hanging on in the face of such a shit storm.
Good work by Westword, as usual.
Lineman for the county: I have been an election judge for many years. I am on the payroll for this one for sure! When the "stuff" came out about Baker, I was to be an election judge. I got my information from Arapahoe County, made a copy, and at an appointment with Baker, I presented it to him and asked him if indeed any of this information was true. That slime looked me in the eye, was blank, turned and walked away. I turned in my letter of resignation for that election and voted for the other person on the ballot.
My question: Why doesn't that whole department walk out? Where are their morals and their "duty to the people"? I have no respect for people who won't do something about a situation like this -- and it costs and costs and costs!!!
Bombs away! I have to congratulate Westword readers for what must be a record use of the word "fuck" in last week's Letters section in regard to Patricia Calhoun's excellent "F-Bombed," in the January 22 issue. Now let me add my own: What the fuck is the matter with the Colorado Legislature? Why can't those guys keep their noses out of our private lives? Why do they want to legislate what we read and what we see? Just as profanity is in the eye of the beholder, so is art.
It's curtains for creativity: Regarding Juliet Wittman's "A Cursed Life," in the January 29 issue:
Would Ms. Wittman's journalism prof or her mother be proud of her for reviewing a play with such a disgusting title? Shame on her and on Westword for giving the LIDA Project's feeble effort of a production any publicity. She can do better as a writer!
Jean G. Tuthill
Editor's note: Juliet Wittman reviewed Fucking A by Suzan-Lori Parks, a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright. And for the record, Wittman -- an award-winning writer herself -- is both a mother and a writing instructor at the University of Colorado. As for HB1078, it's moved on to the Colorado Senate -- after an amendment removed the provision that would have banned the "display" of materials potentially harmful to minors in bookstores. But the provision that bans theaters from presenting such works -- and threatens producers with jail time -- remains.
Magnetic personalities: I always read the Letters section of Westword but have never written until now -- which may seem strange, because I'm writing in response to a cartoon!
In the January 15 issue, The City comic, about burying the uncounted votes, had me laughing out loud. I promptly cut it out and hung it on my refrigerator. In the next issue, I read the letter from a gentleman who was very upset and obviously offended by this simple, four-frame comic strip. All I can say to that is: Lighten up! Getting that defensive over a cartoon is pretty frivolous, especially since political cartoons of this nature appear in Westword all the time (for example, the Halloween version of This Modern World referring to touch-screen voting machines as a threat to democracy -- also on my refrigerator).
Is it worthwhile to object to every cartoon you disagree with? Isn't the act of expressing ourselves what the First Amendment is all about? Derf certainly did a good job of stirring up some controversy, which is a good thing, no matter which side we're on. As for me, I'll agree to disagree.
Rude behavior: In your January 29 Off Limits, I was extremely offended by the line "leaving her thigh-high boots to sag away from her body like some tired old stripper's boobs at the Paper Tiger." Why?
I happen to work at the Paper Tiger; I've been employed there for eight years. I bartend and cocktail at this establishment, and on occasion, I dance. I think that you have been very rude to the ladies that currently work there. I'll bet you've never even been in the Paper Tiger! Before you are so quick to assume that we have nothing but run-down, old, fat, way too ugly or just plain horrid women at our club, perhaps you should see our women. Perhaps we aren't Penthouse pets, but give us a wad of cash and we could be. See, we could buy our breasts, our extensions, our tans, our nails, our expensive costumes that all add up to one thing: fake personalities out for one thing -- the man's wallet.
Sure, our club has a few women who have enhancements, but they at least have good personalities and can actually converse with the client. We have many return customers as well, because they don't like to be sucked dry. They like to come back because we're actually down-to-earth people. I think you owe the ladies, the patrons, the employees and definitely the owners of the Paper Tiger an apology. It's a shame that you have to bad-mouth another club just to promote another high-dollar club. It definitely shows your morals and values as a "writer."
Nancy Hopper Lovley
via the Internet
In praise of Sheehan: As an early critic of Jason Sheehan -- you printed one of my letters in the August 29, 2002 issue -- I feel it incumbent upon me to respond to the recent spate of letters that levy completely unjustified criticism upon him. Yes, Sheehan's early efforts were too much Sheehan, not enough food; however, there is no question that Sheehan learned from the complaints being leveled against him. There is no question that he is a skilled-enough writer to take the condemnation heaped upon him to refine his style without losing his unique voice. There is no question that his appreciation of and passion for food are of a level to qualify him for his job.
Now Sheehan uses his personal references to provide insight into his point of view. It is abundantly clear that he does this in the name of fairness, because, once having established this groundwork, his opinions are clear and unaffected. You may not appreciate his perspective, but he is never mealy-mouthed or ambiguous. He is a critic in the truest sense -- he believes the patron should have an exceptional experience, and he has no patience for form over substance. If you can't stand the well-chosen use of a "bad" word here and there, chances are you don't understand anything about his reviews and shouldn't be reading them. You should probably stick to your suburban Applebee's, etc.
Most of the recent kvetching about Sheehan's reviews has been unfair and unfounded, but the January 22 letter by Diana Hailey was particularly ill-informed. Sheehan's January 15 Bite Me did not contain a single instance of him making "jokes" about CJD. He merely pointed out the unarguable unlikelihood of contracting the disease. Pointing out the fact that one is unlikely to be struck by lightning is not the same as making fun of people who have suffered from such an unlikely event.
Sheehan is hardly perfect, but pick on him for real faults -- not silly crap that shows more about the complainer than the reviewer.
Student counsel: I'm glad that Jason has finally gotten around to reviewing Sherpa's ("On Trek," January 29). I discovered the place about a year and a half ago and have wondered on every visit what he would have to say. However, he should have gone at lunchtime, rather than at dinner. The lunch menu is fantastic. and the deals for students are amazing. Granted, dinner is great -- but there is nothing better than hot, fresh chai tea and a plate of saag between classes.
Anyway, anyone who has not visited Sherpa's is missing out.
Get the Weekly Newsletter