I enjoy a spirited public debate

as much as anyone, so I have enjoyed the give and take over the past few

weeks about Delta pilots and their potential strike against one of Atlanta's

business giants.

Other than planning to book

vacation flights this summer on another airline, up until now I didn't

think I had a hand in this pot. But several folks, mostly pilots or spouses,

have called and written to object to my decision to print unsigned letters

related to the threatened strike.

My aside last week mentioned

the long and occasionally honorable history of unsigned and anonymous

letters appearing in print on matters of public debate. Timothy Parker,

in the letter opposite, chides me for putting anti-strike letters in the

same bag with some of our Founding Fathers' Federalist missives.

I note in passing that my publishing

some signed letters last year got me and the newspaper sued for libel,

so attaching names to letters is no guarantee in and of itself of making

folks happy.

I further wonder in passing

whether an unsigned pro -pilots' union letter would have earned

me an equal amount of animosity, especially from pilots. Well, never mind,

let's deal with letters, pilots, strikes and Delta.

I love letters to the editor.

They are my favorite part of the paper. I relish folks having their say

on issues, pro, con or otherwise. If I have a bias in this regard, it

is to print as many letters as I can from all sides of an issue. I hate

to run out of space and have to leave letters out.

Please be assured of this:

If there are letters from only one side of an issue printed, it is only

because nobody wrote anything for the other side. If any opponents or

rebutters had sent in letters, I would be sure to print them. There is

NEVER an instance of my choosing to favor one side or writer over another.

I have another weakness: I

like to print letters just as the writers wrote them, even if they're

long. I admit that some of our letter writers can be long-winded. But

I believe if you care enough to write a letter, I ought to try to give

you a fair hearing. And to me, that means as little tampering with your

prose as I can manage.

Sometimes, space requires me

to edit for brevity, but I would rather not. If more people wrote letters

to the editor, I would find space to print as many as I could.

I have another preference:

I like for writers to sign their names and stand by their opinions. Mr.

Parker and I are closer in this regard than he may realize.

There's no telling how many

unsigned letters I have tossed in the trash after reading. My general

policy is this: Anonymous letters almost never make it in, but occasionally

I will allow a writer to withhold the name, provided the writer signs

the letter and gives me an address and phone number for verification.

If I choose not to withhold the name, then I won't print the letter.

But and there's always a "but."

Once in a long while, there arises a topic that calls for public debate.

One side is poised for a fight, while the other side is nervously quiet.

One side may have passion, while the other side feels dread. The passionate

side vigorously presents its case to the public, but little is heard from

the other parties to the debate.

Then a letter arrives, opposing

the passionate fighters. "Please withhold my name," the writer

asks. "I or my family would suffer if you publish my name."

In that case I deliberate these

questions.

Would the public be served

Does the letter advance the debate? Does the letter raise issues hitherto

unraised or inadequately addressed? Does the letter express a point of

view likely to held by some or many on the "quiet" side? Would

I publish it if it were signed? Might the writer receive retribution for

holding this view, beyond the normal counterpoint replies that will be

published? And again, are these issues or this point of view likely to

be published in a timely fashion if I trash this particular letter?

After due consideration, I

choose whether to publish the letter, with the name withheld.

It was after that deliberation

and in that spirit that I chose to publish not one, but two, letters without

names in the past two weeks. I don't regret those decisions, and I would

do the same things again.

Our letters pages are not just

for the powerful and the well-placed, the comfortable and the well-positioned.

Our letters pages will be open also to those who feel powerless and threatened

and who lack other means of advancing their arguments.

We welcome your opinions. Send

them to us via the post office, fax or e-mail. But, please, sign your

letter. And then, if you must, make your case why your name should be

withheld. And for all others, you are welcome to criticize me next week

on these pages for that opinion.

A few other thoughts on pilots

and strikes. I think most folks feel the following about Delta pilots

striking.

(1) "Let me get this straight.

You make over $150,000 a year, and you want to go on strike?!" We've

come a long way from those coal mines and the first unions.

(2) "Let me get this straight.

My kids can't fly to (fill in the blank) because you can't get your way?

And I thought pilots were people who cared about the people who depend

on them." Who's acting like a kid now?

My opinion? I think Delta pilots

have a lawful right to strike. And I think Delta ought to have

the right to fire every one of them. I'm real old-fashioned that way:

Folks who are unhappy with their current employer ought to find another

employer with whom they will be happy.

I do agree with one statement

in pilot Parker's letter opposite. He just doesn't get it. And neither

does ALPA. You fliers are just not going to find many non-pilot folks

who agree with you or even respect you at the end of a strike. Pilots

striking over pay will not find much sympathy among the general public.

See if the janitors union will honor your picket line.

Personal likes and dislikes

aside, a strike will harm the Atlanta metro area. The area economy, this

close to a recession, will take a long time to recover. A strike might

fatally wound Delta. At the very least, in today's supercharged competitive

climate, Delta might survive as a second-tier airline, always flirting

with bankruptcy.

Come on, folks, can that be

good for anybody? Are the remaining issues between Delta and the pilots

really worth those costs?