Readers respond to ‘Harry being Harry’

Received many personal e-mail from readers on Sunday's column entitled "New gaffes just 'Harry being Harry?' Excuse is wearing thin." These two represent the range in thinking from Nevada readers. Thought you'd be interested in debating the merits of each side.

Reader One: "I was surprised and taken aback by your evaluation of Senator Reid's gaffes. Yes, these remarks were certainly in context but incomplete. The first one concerning the job loss statement would have, even a school boy understanding, that the added words of 'compared to the last rating of X amount of jobs being lost' were implied to end the statement. Did you not understand that message? The other misstatement that you highlighted concerns the sexist spin that you added to the "hottest member statement". Suppose that the member was named John Doe, could he be the hottest (most popular member), also. Would not your readers think so, too? This truly was a clean statement but only tinted by the ' its in the eye of the beholder' attitude that you have spun on it. Again, no body parts were in reference! Final question for you to now answer for your readers, was this responsible journalism? "

Reader Two: " I read your article today. It was excellent, as always. You brought up many examples of Harry Reid sticking his foot in his mouth and saying very inappropriate comments. There are many types of dementia. One type is multi infarct dementia, that is caused by transient ischemic attacks and/or the more damaging cerebrovascular accidents. Perhaps this is the cause of the troubling examples of Reid being inappropriate. Maybe I was reading in between your lines. I am a registered nurse that has worked with patients with dementia for many years. Often times their inappropriateness is one of the first clues that they have dementia.

" Keep up the good work. I love your columns!"