Attack the argument, not the man 

I'm writing to express my disappointment with New Times for publishing the letter ("Shun the character assassins," April 19) from Mr. Dawson, an obvious apostle of 4th District Supervisor Lynn Compton's conservative agenda.

I've written many letters to the editor of New Times and thank you for publishing them. My letters I'll admit have an edge and an agenda, but I don't attack a person personally, only their positions.

I challenge the absurd positions of "dune riders" when they deny science. I grade Lynn Compton due to her positions on air quality and lockstep adherence to the Trump/Zinke offshore drilling initiatives; I did give her an "A" when she made the political calculation to deny the Phillips 66 rail terminal project. And I take issue with the banalities of Andrea Seastrand and her "dog whistle" partisan rhetoric.

But I think you are off base to print the comments of Mr. Dawson when he says, "it's time for voters to do the right thing and shun the falsehoods of character assassins like Laurance Shinderman."

Nothing that I sent and you printed was false, so to be characterized as a character assassin or to insinuate that my content is false is absurd.

It would be easy "pickings" to skewer Mr. Dawson and his factless letter, but he's not the issue. He's entitled to his own opinion but not his characterization in print that my letter's content was false or that it was imbued with character assassination. I've challenged Lynn's positions but never her character.

Laurance Shinderman

Nipomo