You know not of what you speak, Glen, but I do. I was married to him.
A recent letter attacking Peter Eichenberger for his column about Hunter S. Thompson left me perplexed (Back Talk, March 16). The writer is clearly annoyed with Eichenberger, but he can't seem to explain what it is about the column that "didn't ring true." I read and reread for his point (I've done the same for Eichenberger from time to time), but nowhere does he argue, refute, challenge or even name any of Eichenberger's ideas that he has labeled "bullshit." Nor does he offer any examples of how it is "painfully evident" that Eichenberger has "little life experience." His hostility is apparent, but his reasoning isn't.
Would it be too much to ask a writer who throws a hissy fit over Eichenberger's style to work on his own just a bit? All that is clear from his letter is that the writer needed to vent spleen, and all that is "painfully evident" is that, unlike Eichenberger, he isn't very good at it.
The quote on the Front Porch last week incorrectly said that N.C. State men's basketball forward Cameron Bennerman was a freshman. He's a junior.
Got something to say about an Independent article? Send no more than 300 words to firstname.lastname@example.org; to P.O. Box 2690, Durham 27715; or fax 286-4274. Include your name, phone number and mailing address for verification; we cannot publish a letter without confirmation from the writer. We reserve the right to edit letters for length, style and clarity.