Seven Days | Vermont's Independent Voice | Comment Archives | Stories | News + Opinion | Letters to the Editor

Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: Stories: News + Opinion: Letters to the Editor

Re: “Letters to the Editor (9/19/18)

Harriet is correct. They should treat Kavanaugh the exact same way they treated Bork. Vote no.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by SputnikNuts on 09/20/2018 at 9:40 AM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (8/29/18)

Hi Richard, the vast majority of our letters to the editor are submitted using the feedback form on our website; whenever readers call or email criticism of our coverage, we encourage them to fill out that form. We also receive some feedback via email and believe it or not, other letters still come via the regular mail! If letter writers follow our guidelines, we will publish their views in a future issue of Seven Days. We do occasionally print comments that appear on our website, but first commenters are required to submit their real name, town of residence and a telephone number for confirmation purposes. Some commenters do not want to divulge this info, so their comments never make it into print. Please feel free to submit letters to the editor, or encourage others to do so, if you'd like to see a particular viewpoint reflected in the printed paper. Here's a link to the form:…

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Cathy Resmer on 08/31/2018 at 11:00 AM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (8/29/18)

Is seems to me that the Letters to the Editor do not reflect the general views posted on Seven Days . I recognize not all of these letters reflect a political viewpoint but many do . I know from personal experience that these "letters" are often culled from the comments on your site . And yet there is usually a left slant to the Letter comments not seen in the overall comments . It seems dishonest .

0 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Rich ard on 08/30/2018 at 10:27 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (8/22/18)

@ Ms. Parrish,

I think your complaint against Seven Days for always referring to Hallquist as transgender is unfair. Ms. Hallquist is actively promoting her transgender identity. She is giving national interviews based on it. She is raising money based on it.…

8 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by knowyourassumptions on 08/23/2018 at 1:21 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (8/22/18)

Obviously Michael Haas has been getting misinformation from that horrible group POW!

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Jason R Michaud on 08/23/2018 at 6:06 AM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (8/22/18)

Yea, Michael Haas. I bet you're rich. You just moved here. There is still time for you to move back.

8 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by E. Sutor on 08/22/2018 at 2:42 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (8/22/18)

Judith - the simple solution is to STOP THROWING SHIT AWAY! You're the problem!

2 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by E. Sutor on 08/22/2018 at 2:41 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (8/22/18)

Referring to a trans person as 'some other animal' seems rude, Wendy.

2 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by SputnikNuts on 08/22/2018 at 11:41 AM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (8/8/18)

@Nichael Cramer,
Does the name Merrick Garland mean anything to you?

5 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by BradD on 08/09/2018 at 8:30 AM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (8/8/18)

>> " Democrats in the U.S. Senate have little or no interest in solving our nation's problems and getting along with others to make our country "great again." As a result, they instruct Vermont's senior senator to oppose a highly qualified individual such as Brett Kavanaugh when the president names such a person to a very important position. "

[koff][koff]merle garland[koff][koff]

6 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Nichael Cramer on 08/08/2018 at 2:47 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (7/25/18)

McClaughry's claim that Leahy fears Kavanaugh as a supreme who would 'confine [himself] to interpreting the Constitution the people approved' is absurd. The members of the court who belong to the more conservative religious sects approve officially sanctioned Christian prayer at public meetings, which does not comport with the text of the Constitution. An interpretation of the Constitution that forbids any prayer officially sanctioned by a Government body is a perfectly legitimate interpretation of the Bill of rights, as adopted. To imply that attempts by the Right wing of SCOTUS to read the minds of the authors and adopters of the Bill of Rights are the only legitimate way to interpret the Constitution, and to think they don't bring their own biases (informed by their parochial word view), is laughable.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jay Poole on 07/28/2018 at 2:30 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (6/6/18)

Add another Bravo to Ms. DeYoung . Refreshing to read such a well reasoned rational argument instead of the usual TREES ARE GOOD , PEOPLE ARE BAD nonsense .

9 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Rich ard on 06/07/2018 at 8:20 AM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (6/6/18)

Bravo, Ms. DeYoung.

10 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by knowyourassumptions on 06/07/2018 at 7:23 AM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (5/30/18)

I knew a teen who, high from smoking marijuana, took a nap because he was super chill. These events are a false correlation. These teens were going to cause trouble regardless of their marijuana use. Jeffrey Dahmer drank beer, he also ate people. Thereby beer must lead to cannibalism.

16 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by SputnikNuts on 05/30/2018 at 12:35 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (4/4/18)

The next gen "activists" are just kids, they soon will be redpilled and angry at the older generation for manipulating them.

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by James Boudreau on 04/04/2018 at 8:22 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (2/28/18)

In his letter to Seven Days (above), Culcleasure falsely claims his campaign never plays the race card, even as he insidiously accuses others of doing so.

"The only time I have spoken directly about race in this campaign was in response to questions about the mural," he wrote.

Today's piece in VtDigger ( shows he is, as we say, full of it.

Examples from today's Digger piece alone:

1. "Racial tensions, however, remain a problem, Culcleasure said, particularly inside the citys police department."

2. " 'As a young man of color, to be approached for drugs in Burlington is a common experience,' Culcleasure wrote in a 'Statement on Transformation and Redemption' that he released after the stories began to hit websites and newsstands."

3. "He also made a few observations of the press corps covering his campaign: They are young and white. ' Maybe the press could benefit from diversity training.' "

4. Culcleasure supporter Andy Simon is quoted saying, " Students are really paying attention, and certainly people of color at the university, but not just them.

So for Culcleasure not only to claim he never talks about race, but to claim others do, is just plain poppycock. Race is truly the backdrop of his campaign but he plays Columbo (please tell me you get the reference...) when anyone calls him on it.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Ted Cohen on 03/01/2018 at 1:04 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (2/14/18)

Nick McDougal,

It sound like you missed out on on some basic consent education! Don't feel bad, though, apparently, you aren't alone - just ask Aziz Ansari.

Consent: is an "emphatic yes". Thus: "no," "maybe," "maybe later," "I guess," or even silently pulling all are not consent.

Now let's go back to your first question: "Does a woman who accepts a man's invitation to his private room to drink alcohol bear any responsibility for outcomes?"

Under this scenario that you proposed, the man has offered a drink at his place to the woman, to these things she has said yes (she has consented). She has not consented to anything else. If the man gives her the drink, they have a drink together and that is that everything is hunky dory because she consented to all these things.

Here is where things seem to get mixed up in your argument: Because she accepted the drink does not mean she accepted anything else. So, if the man offered her a drink and she consented and then he brought her a taco and insisted she eat it that would be unreasonable because she did not consent to eating tacos with this man.

Which is why your argument that she consented to the drink and consented to spending time with him and thus consented to something else falls apart. The woman only consented to the first two things. She is not "responsible" your words for anything he wants to happen from that point onwards. If she does not consent to have sex, she does not owe him sex just because she consented to his previous offer to drink with him.

If he misunderstands and thinks she does owe him or that his desires are more important than her consent, that is rape.

5 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by applestoapples on 02/14/2018 at 1:49 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (2/7/18)

Whatever the future should be concerning the campaign of Infinite, I'm just glad to have such a complex and interesting name which to me is the perfect answer to having to hear so much about the Donald. I suspect we're not done with him by a long shot no matter what happens with this particular campaign. I think he's got the kind of staying power that made Bernie a senator. That's my guess.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Tom Howard on 02/11/2018 at 6:09 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (2/7/18)

Thank you, Seven Days, for pursuing the truth in this matter and not letting the Junior Senator from Vermont get away with such adherent tactics.

21 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by civicsmatter on 02/07/2018 at 12:30 PM

Re: “Letters to the Editor (2/7/18)

Diane Kemble,

I whole heartedly agree that "Is it helping? Is it kind? Is it necessary?" is a great question to ask ourselves in daily interactions, I think you are: 1) not reading carefully and 2) missing the roles of government and the free press.

1) The Headlines:

The headlines are factually correct: "$20 Million Mistake: Scott Made False Claim in Budget Speech" The word "mistake is the third word in. For a teacher, you should be encouraging active reading: someone can make a mistake and a false claim at the same time - in fact, people regularly do. The headline clearly states both.

2) Bernie's Failure to Interview:

Your comment about how you would not want to be in Bernie's position in Washington or how he might not want to talk about how members of his family have financially benefited from his political dealings completely fails to take into account that he is an elected official and you (presumably) are not. Bernie ran and was elected to represent the people of Vermont, which is a privilege that he must respect and be held accountable to. When he chose to run (many years ago) he did so with the full understanding that he was giving up some privacy rights (not all) for the privilege of becoming an elected official and serving his state.

The press has an obligation to pursue the truth, not the convenient truth, but the full truth and make it publicly available. This sometimes means pushing back when it becomes uncomfortable.
The notion that Seven Days is a "rag" for asking difficult questions of elected officials and not letting them side step the answers is ludicrous.

25 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by civicsmatter on 02/07/2018 at 12:30 PM

Recent Comments

Keep up with us Seven Days a week!

Sign up for our fun and informative

All content © 2018 Da Capo Publishing, Inc. 255 So. Champlain St. Ste. 5, Burlington, VT 05401
Website powered by Foundation