Quite honestly, it is the writer's

constitutional right to compose any editorial that stops short of libel.

Rather, I would like to offer two comments on "The Citizen"

publishing a letter which the author lacks the courage of his or her convictions

to publicly sign.

First, when a letter is written,

a critical reader asks, "What is the writer's motivation?" By

introducing myself as a Delta pilot and co-worker of Russ, did you, as

a reader, have an immediate (and maybe very intense) reaction to this

letter? Was your reaction based on who I am, and what my personal interest

is in this story line?

name and appropriate byline, you deprive of us of knowing the motivation

behind the letter. Was it the former ex-wife of a pilot, who has vowed

a lifetime of revenge against all pilots? Was it a middle level supervisor,

hoping to give himself bragging rights at work by claiming it was his

letter?

Or, more sinisterly, was it

orchestrated by a member of upper management at Delta, who could hide

behind anonymity and not be held accountable for twisting and distorting

the facts? We, the readers, will never know.

Secondly, the writer starts

by "condemning" an individual that he or she has never met.

Any objective reader must admire the tremendous courage that Russ possesses

to give an interview during such stressful times. Knowing that he would

be the victim of vicious and cowardly personal attacks, Russ consented

to an interview that he hoped would be evenly presented, to give one pilot's

viewpoints.

He had to know that not only

he, but also his wife and children, would be subject to certain ridicule

and scorn. He did not ask to give an anonymous interview (which undoubtedly

would not have been published) in order to protect his family. He bravely

stood up for his opinions and convictions.

The writer of Wednesday's [letter]

probably conjured up many justifications to hide his or her identity.

But what weight do we give your thoughts, if you cannot stand up for them

I am willing to sign this letter.

The signers of the Declaration of Independence risked loss of property,

imprisonment, and even death as traitors to the Crown, yet they signed

their document clearly and boldly. If you have an opinion, and you feel

strongly enough to share it, publish your name. If your letter is well-reasoned,

accurate, and truthful, what do your fear? On the other hand, if your

letter is libelous, inaccurate, and cowardly, you do right by not wanting

your name published.

I would ask the editor to please

reconsider his policy of publishing letters that are signed when written,

and then the name is withheld by request when published. If members in

our community lack the courage to lay public claim to their ideas, we

should be spared their writings.

Hiding behind a cloak of darkness

impedes the truth. Decades ago, cowards hid behind masks and white sheets.

Today, they hide behind anonymous letters.

Jim White

Captain, Delta Air Lines

Name published by request

[The publisher replies:

Several writers objected to the decision to withhold the name of the letter

writer upon request. Their letters follow on pages 5A and 6A. The decision,

while uncommon, is far from unprecedented, and was made and will continue

to be made at the discretion of the editor-publisher. As an aside, the

great debates about adopting the U.S. Constitution featured many "anonymous"

letter writers, who also happened to be some of the leading patriots of

the Revolutionary era.]