ShareThis Page

Randall no 'punk'

| Thursday, Feb. 20, 2014, 8:55 p.m.

To Eric Heyl, regarding your column “Heyl: Former Woodland Hills player Randall shows he's a punk” : A man of your age, finding it OK to call out a young adult in such a way? A man of your age, making a joke of someone else's life?

The definition of “punk” is “a worthless person.” Who are you to judge the worth of a man? Surely not God.

Harry Randall is many things. A punk is not one of them. Yes, you are able to voice your opinion, but what is your opinion when you have no facts on the situation? Yes, you know all you hear and have enough dirt to slander his name but what do you really know? Nothing, nothing about the boy himself, nothing about what is on the inside, just what you see on the outside.

I see much more. Others who actually know Harry see the funny, bright character who brings us smiles on a daily basis. Do you know his background? Do you know what struggles he has gone through? Do you know his life? No.

We who know, understand the mistakes of Harry Randall but also understand that there is more to him, and his mistakes do not define who he really is. He has been through many things in his life; things that shape you for better, things that knock you down, and things that you yourself would never imagine or experience.

Harry Randall is a human being just like me and you, not an animal, not a “punk,” not at all what you portrayed him to be in your demeaning column. So, the big question is: Who is the real punk?

Hannah Bennaugh


The writer is a Woodland Hills High School senior.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.