record', clarify your own rules...
He has ‘struck'
again...
Despite the promise in your note of Monday,
January 19, 2009,
placed under my letter to the Editor ‘Do not
forget to milk the cows', he still was allowed by you to
continue his personal attacks on my person.
In a letter to the editor of
Thursday, January (Unpaid Advisor's
Marshall Plan), the ‘wannabe' something-,
anything but self',
has again tried to ridicule me for fighting for the rights of the St. Martin people in their own native country.
And contrary to what your note
stated, you still allowed the good gentleman to continue ridiculing me
standing
up for my own St. Martin people.
Please Mr. Editor, do not get me wrong, because it
is not that
I mind this ‘wannabe' having nothing
else to do than attacking me personally.
In fact, the non-productive, silly diatribes of
this exotic ‘wannabe'
provide me with a wealth and ‘preponderance
of evidence', to be used at the appropriate time and place unknown to
him.
Hope that he then does not become a ‘cry-cry baby' like others have
in the past.....
As far as I am concerned, I have been through it
all,
including non-effective ridicule, affecting my family as well, for
years.
And know what ?
Still standing over 6 ft. tall and proud.
Being the target of ridicule for me, is a very
affordable ‘price'
for standing up for my native St. Martin people and rest assured, that
I will
continue such, without apologies, come what may.
But as a respected paper, I would like to believe
that the Daily Herald
has a role in informing people in a professional, objective manner and
in the
process setting clear and impartial rules and criteria pertaining to
the publishing
of letters sent to you.
For now, they are not clear to say the least.
What are for instance your standard procedures for
people to
constantly write and attack others in a personal manner, in the process
affecting their families using you paper as means ?
Is it your policy to afford those affected the
same right to
respond and/or to defend themselves or not ?
Case in point here
On Monday, January
19, 2009, I responded with an open letter of my own to Mr.
BIJNSDORP's constant personal attacks on me in your paper.
While indeed you published my open letter, you
also added an EDITOR's NOTE.
Quote; Now that both
gentlemen have had their say,
no more letters in this matter will be entertained from either of them'.
It appears that the note was solely intended for
my person,
because lo- and behold,in the Opinion section of your paper of today,
Thursday,
January 29, you allowed Mr. BIJNSDORP
to continue his personal attacks on me ,‘business as usual'.
Again, Mr. Editor, it is YOUR
paper and you are free to be selective if you so desire.
Also, as far as I am concerned, you are free to
side with the good gentleman in his personal attacks on me, because
that matters not to me, because I know, when one 'spits up in the air,
sooner or later one's own face will bespat'.
Nevertheless Mr. Editor, in the interest of your
readers, and certainly
of the young ones, as well as in the interest of your own professional
credibility,
it might be wise, to explain your position in terms of your rules,
policies on
Letters to the Editor, lest perception of your agenda becomes justified
reality
within our community.
Thanks for allowing me the space in your paper.
Leopold JAMES
Proud native-indigenous-----Yes ..without apologies.