3/19/09
One of the great things about Milton is that the people here have strong opinions on a variety of issues. Whether people are weighing in about Temple Shalom’s proposal to use some of its property for commercial purposes, the importance of saving spring sports and clubs in the schools, or the need to pass an override to pay for town services, the folks are not shy about speaking their minds.
As a general rule, the Times believes that our readers should feel free to express themselves in just about any way they want, with obvious exceptions: potty-mouth language won’t be tolerated, for example, no matter how passionately you feel about something.
Another longstanding rule here is that personal attacks should not be allowed. People are allowed to criticize others’ ideas and their words, but not call them accusatory names. This rule has not changed.
Unfortunately, we recently published a letter including a regrettable term that somehow got past us. The writer used a string of derogatory terms to describe something said by a town official during a public meeting. While none of the adjectives used was particularly flattering, there is one, in particular, we should have edited out. The others were pure opinion based on the official’s comments; the word in question, however, is a hurtful term that can tarnish an individual’s reputation.
Sometimes, when lumped in with others, a word like that can get past a pair of tired eyes. But that’s really not an excuse.
To that public official, and to our readers, we apologize. We shall endeavor not to let an attack of that nature slip by us again.
To those who plan to submit letters, we simply want to remind you that while you’re entitled to disagree with someone, you can’t assault that person’s character.

J. Michael Whalen
Editor