[Norm640]

The non-publishment of the letter isn't the issue, smartie: it's what is said in the letter.

THe title of the thread is actually the title of the letter where I got the letter from. I had nothing to do with it.

The fact is, if a columnist is in such grave error as Rabinowitz seems to be on Coulter, and a guy like M. Stanton Evans writes to correct her, that stuff is usually published. These aren't disagreements between average folks.

Me not getting a letter published in the journal is on no plane whatsoever with M. Stanton Evans not getting a letter published. Considering what the letter was about, the WSJ is implicitly taking a side on this issue, even if it may be the wrong one (that of their own columnist).

I think what is silly is your ignorance of all of that.

[zygoat]

I have to wonder why they did'nt publish your letter. Was this your first attempt with this publication? My first attempt was not published, but at least two subsequent letters were published. And I must admit that they were caffiene induced rants sent at about 5:30-6:00 am, before work! Your letter was well written and backed up by factual excerpts.(Much better than my diatribes!) Perhaps the fact that you questioned one of their own DID have something to do with it.At any rate, Coulter seems to be poison to many of the, ahem, highbrow publications and web sites.

[austinTparty]

No. There are many experts whose letters on their areas of expertise refuting others whom they perceive to be in error don't get published. All you generally see is what is published, not that which isn't. Your awareness of THIS letter does not mean that it is an exception.

If Ann Coulter herself wrote in to correct a column of grave factual error, then that letter is likely given more consideration. The WSJ not publishing a letter is their prerogative, your--or Mr. Evans--personal support of Ms. Coulter notwithstanding. And non-publication is not that unusual, your opinion of Mr. Evans notwithstanding.