ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Poor planning

| Thursday, Nov. 6, 2003

Dear Editor:

I was part of the crowd in Uniontown on Oct. 26 to see Prince Andrew. I found this event to be very poorly planned. My son, Mark Andrew Downing, drove six hours to see the Prince. We arrived late morning. After parking, we looked for a restaurant to have lunch. Many friendly hometown people directed us to several restaurants. However, they were closed. After buying a soft drink and crackers, we donned our rain gear. On the advice of a security person, we found our spot on the curb directly across from the podium where the Prince would be speaking. We were so glad to have arrived early and found a great spot for viewing the activities. We, among many others, stood for three or more hours in the rain.

Our glee ended upon the arrival of three buses carrying the "elite." By the time the buses were empty, our view was completely blocked. Yes, I realize these people paid money to see the Prince, but it is my understanding they had just spent time with him during lunch at a country club. Now it should have been the "commoner's" turn. Had there been chairs on the street for them to sit, all would have had a good view. This is where better planning would have accommodated everyone alike. There was much dissatisfaction among the group of people in the area where we stood. I wish this had been addressed in your article.

We liked seeing the veterans getting the "royal" treatment that they so rightly deserve. I wish your newspaper article would have mentioned the Prince did recognize them by going to them with a friendly handshake. He also shook hands with some of the Boy Scouts ... what a thrill that must have been for them.

In the future, these may be things to take into consideration when planning such events.

Donna Downing,

Greensburg

e-mail

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.

click me