Dear Editor,
So much in John Quick’s May 23 guest column cries out for response, but RDA repetition and rebuttal grow tiresome. Instead, I’ll restrain myself to making these two points:
- Despite Quick’s implication, my RDA columns have not advocated suspending or eliminating the RDA. My columns advocated talking about these options. There’s a big difference.
That he apparently fails to grasp that difference is ironic in a column in which Quick claims that I am the one who is operating from what he called a “knowledge deficit.”
- Quick implies that anyone who examines the RDA and comes to a different conclusion than Quick’s must be ignorant. Two reasonable people can examine a set of circumstances and come to different conclusions about the best course of action.
The fact that they disagree on the best course of action doesn’t make one person ignorant or uneducated or mean that one person is “operating from a knowledge deficit” to use Quick’s exact words.
It most likely means they have different priorities. Understanding that concept is, in my opinion, a key to living in a tolerant, diverse, multi-partisan community. Failure to comprehend it is a critical “knowledge deficit.”
Lisa Pampuch, Morgan Hill
