In reply to Andrew Tibbetts’ article on September 1, entitled “Learn to deal with obscenity,” he may have had an intelligent message somewhere in his commentary, but it was lost to people like me because of the way it was written. In writing, both substance and style are important. I found his language to be in bad taste, vulgar, and just plain distracting. I imagine, without too much effort, that others did, too.

As for his message, whether our “poor citizenry” need to be protected from the likes of Howard Stern is an important question and should be part of a larger debate on free speech, social responsibility, and the role of free enterprise in society. Unfortunately, Tibbetts shows a greater willingness to taunt than to discuss.

This is sad because he has a position, as managing editor, to lead an intelligent, inclusive debate. In short, he did us all a disservice—with his language, but more profoundly, with his inability to present the issue in a way that illuminates.

I am ashamed to have my college newspaper print such material. I am ashamed to have attended a school that has people who are so lacking in good taste, etiquette, and politeness. That the managing editor is unable, or unwilling, to write a persuasive argument without obscenities is a sad reflection on RPI.

I cannot show this article to anyone and say, “This is why you should attend RPI!” In fact, it provides good reason not to attend RPI, where students may be able to calculate, but apparently are not able to distinguish between polite discourse and rude, obnoxious, boorish diatribe.

Most of the average people that I know would find Tibbetts’ language unsuitable for a paper like The Poly. I would say most would find it unsuitable for conversation at happy hour. I would suggest Tibbetts expand his circle of acquaintances. If, as he claims, few people on RPI’s campus would find the words he used in his article offensive when they are used in public discourse, then RPI has a big problem. This is not a place I can be proud of.

Why can’t I read Tibbetts’ comments without the vulgarity? Why do I have to “move on to one of the other features in the newspaper?” I should “just turn the page or change the channel?” And let the paper or television (and RPI and society?) become more vulgar than is necessary? Well, maybe I should. We can survive without talking to each other, can’t we?

Lester Hadsell