I’ve said many times that my favorite part of this daily newspaper is the Letters to the Editor section. In the Second Most Educated City in America, the letters are bound to be written by experts in a variety of fields, and most of those experts will have all sorts of fancy initials behind their names. Argue with them at your own risk.

I’m especially pleased when a letter to the editor includes my name. As I’ve noted before, I get five bucks every time my name is mentioned, 10 if it’s mentioned negatively. The latter is a small bonus to cover the cost of therapy should my fragile ego get bruised by a particularly pointed letter.

Well, I hit the jackpot the other day when a friendly chap named Bruce fired off a letter to the editor that was titled “A forum is not a debate.” I think that was the newspaper’s headline, not Bruce’s, but it seems to have accurately captured the gist of Bruce’s guided missive.

“I’m writing in response to Bob Dunning’s misrepresentation of the Measure A forum held by the League of Women Voters,” Bruce begins as dollar signs danced in my head. A “misrepresentation,” attributed to me, is definitely a 10-dollar mention.

Adds Bruce: “Dunning repeatedly used the term ‘debate’ to describe the Measure A forum. He accused the league of stacking this ‘debate’ with pro-Measure A folks, implying that they were misleading the public.”

Well, as much as I hate to say it, when it comes to misleading the public, my new best friend forever Bruce needs to look in the mirror.

After searching the archives, I could find three separate columns in the last several weeks that mentioned the League of Women Voters and Measure A.

In the first column in reference to Measure A, the word “forum” was used 15 times and the word “debate” was used just three times. Apparently Bruce missed that column or he wouldn’t have been able to claim that I had “repeatedly” used the term “debate” instead of “forum.”

Indeed, it appears I repeatedly used the word “forum” by a margin of 5 to 1. But hey, never let facts get in the way of a good story.

Still, it’s possible he was referring to the second time I mentioned the League and Measure A, which came several days later. Turns out in that one, “forum” was used nine times and “debate” just twice, but I will admit I tossed in “debategate” a couple of times as well. I’m a sucker for made-up words that rhyme with themselves.

Even more tellingly, “forum” was used in the first paragraph, the second paragraph, the third paragraph, the fourth paragraph, the fifth paragraph, the sixth paragraph and the seventh paragraph before the word “debate” had appeared even once.

I was trying my level best to give Bruce the benefit of the doubt here, but given that we were now up to 24 “forum” mentions to just five for “debate,” I moved on to column No. 3, where in reference to Measure A, the word “forum” weighed in 12 times and “debate” just once. This gave “forum” an insurmountable 36 to 6 lead over “debate” in the three columns combined, but again, never let a few facts get in the way of a good story.

Worse yet, Bruce claims to be some sort of wordsmith who contends that “A forum is a meeting or medium where ideas and views are exchanged. Ideas do not have to be opposing to be exchanged.” Probably why I used the word “forum” 36 times, my friend.

Then again, the World English Dictionary defines “forum” first and foremost as “A meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest.” Its next two definitions of “forum” also both mention the word “open.”

Claims Bruce, still sticking to his now discredited claim: “By using ‘debate’ instead of ‘forum,’ Dunning makes both the League and Measure A supporters appear to be committing fraud.”

Bruce, fella, sit down and cool off for a minute. How did you miss those 36 mentions of the word “forum”? Or did you even bother to read anything at all before deciding to shoot yourself in the foot?

As to Bruce’s claim that I was accusing the League of fraud, he apparently missed the paragraph where I stated “Now, the League of Women Voters is an independent organization that can hold any kind of forum it wishes. They can stack the deck — as they clearly did in this case — without violating any election laws whatsoever. But, when they use the publicly owned Community Chambers and are granted a fee waiver based on the belief that this would be a traditional ‘forum,’ with give-and-take between both sides to this critical ballot issue, they’ve crossed the line of what’s right and proper.”

But there I go using that pesky “forum” word again. Twice.

Interestingly, in its application requesting the fee waiver, the League is asked to describe the “benefit to the community” of the activity involved, to which the League replies “Information to voters prior to election makes democracy work.” Apparently democracy works especially well if the voters are presented only one side of the argument.

The city of Davis, as it turns out, thought it was getting the dictionary definition of an “open” forum as well or it wouldn’t have rescinded the League’s fee waiver and sent it a bill for $812.50 instead.

Maybe when Bruce gets through firing off letters to the editor, he’ll send the League a nice fat check to help defray its unexpected debt.

Then again, that’s debatable.

— Reach Bob Dunning at [email protected]

Comments

comments