GO letter written in bad taste

I believe that it's important for there to exist dialogue between newspaper editors and their readers. also believe that the purpose of forums like editorials and reader mail is for the free and open exchange of opinions and ideas.

Normally I applaud those who feel strongly enough about an issue to take the time to write a letter that has the potential to be seen by thousands of people. However, I do not applaud Wendy Szmik who wrote in regarding the previous week's editorial (GOing the distance for train travel). Frankly, I was dismayed by the content and tone of Szmik's letter, and felt someone should speak up in support of the editor, Chris Simon.

Least of my concerns was the poor construction of her argument, though I do feel it's worth mentioning. Among many things, she claims that anyone who commutes to Toronto through a winter will "never do it again" simply because that is a choice that she has made. Yet many people commute from Innisfil to Toronto and they have done so for years. Why do you think the highways are so busy?

Szmik expresses anger over the suggestion that a GO station in Innisfil could serve those wishing to shop in Barrie because, "GO is a commuter service, not a shopping service". The last time I checked, the definition of "commuter" is any person who regularly travels from one place to another, as from suburb to city.

I do believe that would include those wishing to go from Innisfil into Barrie to do shopping.

Szmik also complains about the suggestion that the reintroduction of the GO train to the area could become a safety issue. The editorial suggested that rail crossings remaining unused for so many years has caused motorists to no longer exercise any caution when crossing. Szmik cites the fact that GO has introduced an "advertising safety blitz" as evidence for this being insulting to residents.

I am wondering why she thinks GO would waste their advertising dollars on a campaign promoting safety if they didn't think that safety might be an issue. highly doubt they threw together such a campaign without doing a little research and so perhaps the existence of the ads only serves to support the assertion of the editor.

Szmik goes on to discredit herself further by finishing her letter about why we don't need a GO station here in Innisfil with a complaint about how town money has been misspent and should have instead been invested in a GO station. Excuse my ignorance, but I can't seem to wrap my mind around that one.

The faulty logic of the letter was bad, but it wasn't enough to compel me to write this letter.

What angered me most about Szmik's letter was the fact that she turned it into a personal attack on a man who was simply fulfilling his end of the dialogue between editor and reader, a man who she presumably has never met (I presume this only because I believe very few people would have the gall to say to someone's face the majority of the insults written in her letter).

She refers to Simon's "supposed intellect", "foolish comments" and "absolute craziness". Apparently a fan of the melodramatic, she mentions her "complete and utter bewilderment" and the necessity of Valium to calm herself down.

Szmik claims that Simon is insulting and injuring his readers, not making any sense, and even claims that he has no right to comment on the subject because he doesn't "have a clue" about it.

She apparently doesn't have a clue about decency, or how to properly express oneself without resorting to hyperbole and mud slinging. By her own logic then, she probably should avoid writing any letters to the editor in the future.

Personally, I'll be happy not to read them.

Sarah McCarthy,

Innisfil