Maurice Emmer and I have substantial disagreements on a variety of issues, both local and national. We are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. But that divide has stimulated a robust discussion between us, totally devoid of histrionics, one in which a remarkable degree of common ground has emerged even if we continue to disagree on many substantive aspects.
Not so in the cases of Johnny Boyd (“Don’t tug on Superman’s cape,” Aspen Daily News, Jan. 7) and Tim Cooney (“Synthetic outrage rings hollow,” Aspen Daily News, Jan. 8). In a fine example of an Australian tag team, both gang up on Mr. Emmer’s Jan. 1 letter, one that thoughtfully suggested a list of questions to be presented to those seeking public office in the upcoming elections. Both have fallen into the petty narrow-minded trap of reverting to personal attack as a means of supporting their positions. It is a sure sign of weakness when one goes after the author as opposed to addressing what the author actually says.
A suggestion for Boyd, Cooney and those acolytes who will surely follow: Re-read Mr. Emmer’s letter as though it came from the editorial board of the Aspen Daily News. That is, start with a clean slate and forget about your hatred and overt disrespect for the author. It contains some thought-provoking ideas that deserve serious consideration.
Neil B. Siegel