Visit from a stranger

Dear Editor:

I was quite taken aback this week, and caught somewhat off-guard, to have a stranger arrive at my home, unannounced, to dispute my response published in the COURIER on July 1, to his letter published on June 17. He evidently found it important to have the “last word” in person.

The stranger at my door initially seemed not to understand my repeated statements that I was in the middle of a telephone conversation. While I perhaps could have told my eldest son, with whom I was having a rare and enjoyable conversation, that I needed to hang up, I saw no reason to choose to entertain a complete stranger instead of my son.

The man waited at the curb until I (foolishly?) came out to see what he might be selling door-to-door. Perhaps yet another tree-trimmer? Perhaps his candidacy for some political office? Perhaps offering to repaint my house number on the curb, which is sorely needed? Or, from his armful of papers, perhaps soliciting signatures for yet another proposition for the November ballot?

After he finally identified himself, gesturing with the armful of documents that he seemed to believe might impress me with his importance and prestige, the man explained that he thought it simpler to seek me out in person, rather than to engage in a never-ending exchange of letters through the COURIER. Though I affected to agree, I actually think he should not have felt such an urgent need to have the last word on the matters discussed in our respective letters.

I believe the act of this man coming to my house unannounced was not only unconventional, but also very inappropriate, as well as more than a little strange. I now speculate that some people might have worried that the appearance of a complete stranger at their home for the purpose of confronting them about their comments in a letter to the COURIER might be perceived as involving a kind of real or implied threat, and that such people might have even called the Claremont police to complain about such. Should I have?

I have avoided using the name of the man who came to my house in the manner I have described, as I do not wish to embarrass him publicly. I do expect, however, that he will essentially identify himself by responding to this letter in a future issue of the COURIER, in order to again have the last word. He is quite welcome to do so. As for me, I have better things to do.

Don Fisher

Claremont

[Editor’s note:?We certainly don’t condone unwelcomed visits by letter-writers and hope that in the future we can keep the discussion on our pages. —KD]

Iran treaty

Dear Editor:

We signed the nuclear treaty with Iran a year ago amid prophecies of doom. The treaty prohibits Iran from developing nuclear weapons for 25 years in return for an end to economic sanctions against that country. Both Iran and the US are much better off today because of the nuclear treaty. The alternative to diplomacy was surely another war.

Without the treaty we might well be bombing Iran by now, adding a sixth country to the list. That would have precipitated Iran’s ground invasion of Iraq and the necessity to repel Iranian ground forces by injecting a hundred thousand or more US soldiers into the region.

Ivan Light

Claremont