ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Rest of the story

| Friday, Aug. 15, 2003

I am writing in reference to an Aug. 5 article written by Matt Junker, " Pair seek Fayette commission seats ."

The article incorrectly stated I was arrested for harassing Sean Cavanagh. In fact, I was cited and sent a ticket in the mail. There is a difference. Junker correctly said that I was found guilty of harassing Sean Cavanagh. However, he failed to point out that I have not paid the fine, and never will.

Junker reported that I was arrested for disturbing a commissioner's meeting after expressing admiration for a Chinese butcher who slaughtered government officials there. I never expressed admiration for the butcher. I simply read an article out of Insight magazine during my public comment time, and said that it sounded like a plan to me. Most important, Junker failed to mention that I was found not guilty of all charges by a jury in January.

Junker failed to mention that in 1998 I was cited by then chief deputy sheriff of Fayette County, Mark Santore, for disorderly conduct for refusing to leave a commissioner's agenda meeting and was found not guilty of that offense as well.

I have met Mr. Junker and discussed things pertaining to county government with him often. I have always found him to be very professional. However, if he is going to report a story, he should tell the entire story.

Brian Lutes
North Union Township

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.

click me