Letters are posted as we receive them during the week, and before they are printed in the paper, so check back frequently to see new letters. If you'd like to send a letter to the editor, use this postmarks submission form, or email your letter directly to [email protected]. Thanks for your patience.

Dear Editor,
    I enjoyed your article about the Austin Council resolution on buying carbon-free electricity for Austin Energy [“Public Notice: Drama on the High Seats,” News, Sept. 5]. (Your line about my opposition being the fourth sign of the Apocalypse was hysterical.) And you got most of the context right.
    But, I do want to clarify that I did not specifically side with Austin Energy, except to oppose the resolution. I am on neither the side of the activists nor the utility.
    Last month, I sent a letter to the Generation Task Force about their report on which the resolution was based. I said:
    "To a great degree, what you have presented to date is more like an undocumented wish list.
    The report easily requires several months of continued work to draw the map that is necessary.
    I encourage you to ask City Council for the time necessary to complete your work to this standard. … It is important that Austin provide an example for the developed nations of the world, and continued refinement of the task force’s ideas will make this more likely."
    There needs to be a credible plan for clean energy if we are to convince the electorate to go in our direction.

Dear Editor,
    You owe people with disabilities an apology [“Can't Please Everyone,” Feedback, Sept. 5]. You have a perfect right to format your paper in whatever manner you choose to do. But tell me: If a member of or an advocate for, say, the gay community or the African-American community wrote you concerning a legitimate concern about the format or content of your publication being potentially discriminatory toward their group, would you dismiss them with a headline that read: "Can't Please Everyone." I don't think so. People with disabilities have rights, concerns, and feelings just like everyone else. So, you do owe them an apology for your flippant, insensitive headline. I don't need an apology, I am a professional who can stand up for himself. But part of my professional duty and privilege is to stand up for the rights, concerns, and feelings of those who cannot always stand up for themselves.

Dear Editor:
    As immediate past chair of the Mueller Neighborhood Association, I closely follow issues that could impact the quality of life in our neighborhood, and the city as a whole. After weighing all of the considerations, I’m supporting Proposition 1, the urban rail proposal, and have encouraged others to do the same. But in doing so online, I’ve met with an astonishingly vitriolic response from a handful of Prop. 1 opponents, some anonymous and some not. In recent weeks, this group has characterized Prop. 1 supporters as “morons,” “idiots,” “liars,” “shills,” “stupid,” “trolls,” and, artfully, “full of crap.” I respect that people have strong opinions – that’s part of what makes Austin such a special place – but when the dialogue moves away from issue advocacy and into a relentless barrage of personal insults, we all lose. Prop. 1 opponents: Let me and others express our views without being bullied.

Dear Editor,
    The article “Heirloom Wisdom,” by Chase Hoffberger [News, Aug. 29] appears to paint Charles Hart Bengyak as being sort of a shady character. To the best of my knowledge, Bengyak did not merely skip town. Months, if not almost a year, before Heirloom Jewelry closed, I had been told by one of his employees that he was planning on moving to Reno, Nevada. His business also did not shut down in the middle of the night; there were signs posted that he was closing the business and the final days of the going out of business sale seemed to extend for more than a month beyond the time it was expected to close. Many people I am acquainted with did not like Bengyak for one reason or another. To his credit, he always made it clear that he usually was only interested in buying gold and silver as a metal and not jewelry (unless the item had papers to go with it), and to the best of my knowledge, he did have the highest buying prices in town. I am not trying to defend Bengyak, and I have witnessed a thing or two addressed in a review on another website, but I do not think he is as bad as the article tends to make out. If the ruby and diamond ring had been mine, I would have been filing a police report as soon as I had reason to be suspicious. I don't think I would have waited a year or more to make any inquiries. I think there is more to this story than I am reading.