We’ve Been Warned

I’m calling about last week’s cover story (“They Think They’re in Love,” September 4). I think as the community speaker, the Reader is handed out freely to everyone, including children. I think that you need to use your best judgment. You might want to be thinking before you just put out anything. I love the Reader, but I tell you, that copy with that cover story, I was in disbelief. I want you all to remain in the public eye, but if you’re going to continue along those lines I will just have to tell people not to pick it up. I work in the hospitality industry. I generally hand out the Reader, but I couldn’t even make myself hand that particular copy out freely. I really feel that you need to be thinking first. Put on your thinking cap. Not everything is news or should be publicized, particularly when it’s free to the public, including children. Somebody has to start making the right judgment for the children. Let it be you. Let it be you. Let it be a good voice.

Needed to tell you that. Hope you all listen. Continue your good work that you do informing the public, but not with that. God bless you.

Name Withheld

With Respect To Chuck

I would like to send my heartfelt thanks to John Brizzolara for his wonderful remembrance of my boss of 30 years, Chuck Valverde (“We’ll See No More of Giants,” Feature Story, September 4). John’s sincere and respectful article is very much appreciated by both his family and the staff of Wahrenbrock’s Book House. Everyone in the San Diego book scene has a story or three to tell about Chuck. His influence in the book business will be felt for years to come.

Jan Tonnesen
La Mesa

Who Cares?

I don’t understand bloggers (“You Blog, You’re Out,” “City Lights,” September 4) thinking anyone should care about their trials and tribulations of daily life. Don’t we have more important things to do in life than waste time reading about other people we don’t know brushing their teeth or how traffic was when they drove into work? I couldn’t care less what bloggers think of their coworkers. I hate my boss too, and I’m self-employed.

Ken Harrison

Welk Love

This is in response to Dale Ann Thompson’s letter from August 14 regarding Lawrence Welk, which is shown on PBS and in which they ask for contributions to keep the show continuing. You say you are 72 and you hate Welk. Ma’am, I am half your age, and I love Lawrence Welk. Just because you don’t like him does not mean we who do, even if few, don’t deserve to watch, and if you don’t want to watch him, then don’t. You don’t have to contribute to PBS for his program, but we who do will continue to support PBS in keeping him alive. I don’t care for the music you said that you like, but I don’t try to tell anyone they cannot listen; just keep it out of my earshot, if possible. Welk will not be buried, as you are wishing would happen. We have the Welk Resort in Escondido, and if he were “buried,” it would not continue to exist. So please don’t question when Welk will be buried, and I won’t question when your “music” will be buried. Thank you, PBS, for keeping up his music. Adios, aurovwa, allveedersane. Good night. Or something like that.

Name Withheld
via email

Share / Tools

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • AddThis
  • Email

More from SDReader


I am quite flabbergasted by the "protect the children" responses of obvious ostriches. Like Sarah Palin, are we to revert to the idiotic "storks," "birds & bees" of yesterdays' BS once again?!

Get a grip people. Kids & teens develop sexual & reproductive problems in the ABSENCE of information. Consider the inanity of the woman "scared to be sterile" by taking the Pill! Where in the world did she get such an erroneous idea? On the street, in the vacuum provided by parents and the "see no evil" imposed on schools, that's where. It's almost as if we have reverted to the creationist school board so quickly recalled in Vista - that's how short memories are, alas.

There is FAR more at stake here than the First Amendment (let alone the 2nd, 5th.. all of the Bill of Rights). ~jill

Oh! TY for joining this discussion, fumber. I think. That is..

fumber, I've been perusing Reader & google hits for fred.. Seems I netted a true phish?

But then I am an old phart.. what is the proper term for someone using constant net presence/ position/ supposed authority in order to propagandize his own interests? ~jill

At first, I was dumbfounded that no one else bothered to debate the idiotic letter from [name withheld] that warned 'The Reader' to think about "the children" before publishing something as innocent & informative as "They Think They're in Love."

What would those children learn other than what they already THINK they know, except how moronic their giggling & uninformed contemporaries appear in print?

Now I am simply saddened that San Diego County denizens shrug off what could have begun a very productive conversation about the apparent Victorian (Ice Age) state of sexual awareness & education in what is supposed to be our nation's most "enlightened" state. Bah Humbug to ALL the mealy-mouthed & silent "organizers" of supposed teen intervention centers & their ilk. ~jill


I too reacted to Ms. Name Withheld's hysterical "think of the children" nonsense.

I'm more concerned about the Christian Taliban in our midst than in far-off Afghanistan. That such imbeciles are treated seriously is a shame...but I am also appreciative of the fact that the Reader always publishes the negative reactions to its stories.

Remember just a few weeks ago, the Reader published a letter of protest from the Mexican Consulate regarding some stories?

The Reader publishes the criticism, acknowledges it, and continues to do what it does.

Sometimes the Reader is accused of having a secret pro-life agenda.

Then it's accused of having a secret anti-establishment agenda.

Some of the Reader reporters are forbidden access to city hall.

But no matter what, the Reader continues to publish provocative and informative stories from across the spectrum. Without the Reader, whatever its faults, San Diego would be a grayer and duller place.

So, yes, we all agree "Ms. Withheld" is an idiot. I'm glad the Reader publishes letters from everyone, positive and negative, so we can see what others are thinking...even if their thoughts are about as coherent and logical as Ozzy Osborne played backward.




Someone actually reads this stuff.

Now if someone who actually addresses the subject at hand would respond, we'd be swimming in sweet pickle juice, huh? ~jill

fumber, do you have something to contribute to the discussion of sex education, or would you rather elucidate about your knowledge of fred's personal habits? (I'm all ears either way here...) ~a grinning jill

OMG, fumber! I don't think I could survive 30 seconds.. (ahem). I had considered something far less costly for him to maintain for such purposes, like a few ducks or a teen tied up in a closet.

While I am thankful for finding you, hon, could you please direct me to any reader forum where sanity reigns? hugs to fumber

I mean to say, Fred, that your defense of The Reader's letter to the editor policies was totally unnecessary and quite off-subject.

I am well aware of the publisher's supposed pro-life & anti-gay positions, but I have never known those positions to interfere with subjects concerning the sexual education of our minor children, nor the protection of those children who are obviously already sexually active.

Why would you use the oxymoron, "Christian Taliban," and a completely unrelated reference to a cover story about TJ (which I also applauded as desperately needed)?

Fred wrote: <>

Secret? HA! Exactly what does an anti-abortion stance have to do with educating children about sexual reproduction & the human body? The only connection I can think of are radical extremists who believe kids should remain ignorant of consequences even beyond the point when they are capable of procreation & passing on STDs. Some moronic parents seem to be so embarrassed of sexual mechanics that they wait until their kids reach the age of 18 when they can kick them out of the house without alerting any legal authorities. except for whispers on the street or in study hall

Fred again: <>

Hmmm, 'The Reader' as anarchist is a new one for me - except when you go back to when it was truly an underground rag. Yeah, I can recall the days when it was a thin little alternative voice minus all the BIG$$ ads that occupy over 75% of its current copy. Now it's no more or less than the UT or NCT, except for a purchase price.

Fred again: <>

LOL, Fred! Who ISN'T forbidden access to City Hall these days unless they stick to scripted questions? Give that a rest, please. The real story on that score is access to Palin right now, LOL.

If you wish to debate those unrelated issues, I will be happy to take you on. In the meantime, please check your references to Logic 101. ~jill

so, should that be a proper acronym, "b&rrnofehw"?

Do please inform me about the roam-o-rama? ~jill

I see that your comment has been properly edited, fumber, dammit.

Still, Phred has failed to make a re-appearance, which is quite telling.

I am intrigued & want to know where I can interact with you &/or like-minded folks.. ~jill

i am already well-acquainted with the small insert describing places "in and about" San Diego. Forgive me for thinking you were speaking literally.

So, no suggestions? We could always continue this discussion right here, I reckon. I'll invite others if you will ;) ~jill

no rat here (although I have problems with family members who are apparently of the pack-rat species).

I just posted at roam-o-rama, and am beginning to feel that the rat you think you smell is your own hole. ~jill

Am I wrong, fumber? or will you disappear like Phred & become phumber?

I never even mentioned here that my entire career has been in horticulture & natural history, so I guess you duped me..

Ok then, phumber, got yer number... ~jill

Hi Jill,

I was at the 7-11 grabbing some jelly donuts and baby wipes, so I had to drag my stinking carcass away from my computer for a few moments.

I see you've met my good friend fumber. Ever since that unfortunate wheat-grass incident, he's just not been the same.

Glad you googled me.

Again, I agree with your original post that those who oppose sex education in schools, or abhor any discussion of sexuality in a newspaper, are not "protecting children" but dooming them to a lifetime of ignorance.

I didn't mean to defend any of the Reader's alleged positions on the issues, but to point out that in spite of those positions, it does a fair job presenting a lot of different perspectives.

As to my own writing being highly opinionated...well, yeah. You can do it too, and given your skill in writing, I hope you will. I look forward to reading more from you.

But where, oh where, is fumber's blog?



Log in to comment

Skip Ad