To the Editor:
I cannot help taking note of Stephen Gencarella’s latest letter, and have only the following to add:
In my response to his original remarks, I made only the point that the absence of combat is not necessarily a sign of conspiracy or collusion among Democrats and Republicans in Lyme, contrary to his apparent viewpoint. I suggested that he run for office, since he sees such distortion of the democratic process here. He declines.
His response has been to resort to ad hominem attacks on me and others who disagree with him. He calls my remarks “hammy” and “theatrical” and asserts that I am an enemy of democracy in Lyme, or an advocate of something he sees as corrupt.
He does not know me. We have never met personally, nor have we ever conversed. He knows nothing and apparently cares not to know anything about what services I have performed for this town. Yet he indulges himself in stereotyping me, my attitudes and motives. I would invite all to reread my remarks and his, and then decide who is being “hammy” or “theatrical”.
He seems to believe that when all you have going for your argument is belief without real evidence, the way to defend that argument is not to attack the opposing argument but to attack your opponent.
I am confident that he would express abhorrence at such tactics as currently practiced on the extreme right, but ironically, he sees no fault in engaging in that practice himself. Self-righteous confidence in one’s own rectitude can lead to odd places. I say this only because it is so vividly displayed in his writing.
Herbert Ross MD