What are you saying?

I've been around the newspaper industry for a long time. Since 1980, in fact, and one of the most rewarding parts of the job for me is hearing from readers with their thoughts and opinions on something I've written.

Granted, not everyone agrees with my ramblings, but that's just fine as I don't expect you to. One of my roles as a columnist is something I refer to as the 3Ds, which is to encourage open dialogue, discussion and debate.

Without clear and unfettered debate, our dialogue becomes lopsided and stilted so that's why, even when I don't agree with something someone may have written, I will always defend their right to say it, unless it's untruthful propaganda designed to divide and stir up violence or hate. That's where I draw the line.

I believe we should stick to the facts, even when we don't like them or agree with them. It is true that in today's volatile climate it is becoming increasingly more difficult to discern what is the truth, what is fiction or what is someone's warped version of the truth. That's why it is now more essential than ever to dig deep for information and consider the source of that information before you form your opinions.

But enough of that. You know the drill and you will have to decide for yourself what you want to believe and what you do with that information, but please remain civil towards others as it's about exchanging ideas and developing informed decisions, not about spewing venom or launching attacks on social media.

In the interest of furthering those open lines of communication, I want to share with you some of the feedback that I've received from readers who took the time to let me know what they think about what I've written in recent weeks. They also want to share information with others so let's see what they're saying.

In my Jan. 26 column where I addressed 22 questions that deserve to be answered in 2022, one of the issues I raised was the need to ban certain words like “retarded” (I hate to even write it). It's an ugly and degrading word that is often used to demoralize a certain group of people and it has no place in today's society.

One of my loyal readers, Roland Burton from Liverpool responded: “Speaking of words that should be banned, but on a different note, did you ever stop to think that if the phrase ‘let's be perfectly clear,' and words ‘clearly,' ‘so' and ‘look' were taken out of a politician's vocabulary, they would be unable to speak?”

He followed that up with another note: “What has happened to the use of proper English (in Canada, anyway). I hear some of the most glaring grammatical errors on a regular basis, even from the most experienced journalists — errors I would have been severely reprimanded for making by any of my elementary or high school teachers. For example:

– ‘lay' for ‘lie'

– ‘like' for ‘as if'

– ‘for free' for ‘free'

– ‘me' for ‘I' and ‘I' for ‘me' – double negatives

– ‘he goes' for ‘he says'

– ‘I'm like' to describe a personal action

– ‘momento' for ‘memento' – ‘beg the question' almost always used incorrectly

– ‘The HMCS' rather than ‘HMCS'

– ... and so on

Then there's public speaking. Can nobody speak without a script or teleprompter anymore? Especially politicians, who require a script, a teleprompter or memorized prepared response for all communication.

And finally, do we not call somebody, or write to somebody, or speak to somebody, or contact somebody these days? Must we always ‘reach out'? And has ‘yes' been replaced with ‘ya' in the Oxford dictionary?”

These are all great points and thank you for sharing, Roland. I always appreciate hearing from you.

Following my column about Ground Hog Day on Feb. 2 and other Nova Scotia superstitions, Roland wrote again:

“I was a 38-year career officer in our navy. Here is another superstition to add to your collection, and an interesting anecdote — at a mess dinner, we never clink glasses to toast a person or an event, because each time that is done a sailor dies at sea.

“Here is the anecdote:

I was the captain of the frigate HMCS OTTAWA. In the instruction (by message) that appointed me to my command:

The date to assume command was the 13th of April

The code for being married was M13

My accumulated sea time as of 13 April 82 was 10 years and 3 days (adding up to 13)

OTTAWA'S side number was (and still is) 229 (adding up to 13).

I had a very successful command, with a fine ship's company, and no incidents. I now consider 13 my lucky number.”

Thank you again Roland for this interesting vignette. It is most interesting, indeed, considering that there are many superstitions around the sea and the number 13. I have added these to my collection.

Back to my Jan. 26 column about the 22 questions that deserver answers in 2022, another reader, Cindy O'brien from Mahone Bay, wrote:

“I have your article ‘Questions that deserve answers' hanging on my refrigerator as a personal reminder to address some of these questions — however/whenever I can — in 2022. I agree with all of them. The article is a poignant reminder that it's not enough to just agree, but to find ways to be part of the solutions. Thank you for voicing these issues.”

Thank you, Cindy and Roland, for taking the time and sharing your thoughts with me. Your feedback is always appreciated and that goes to all of your out there reading my column. If you have something to share, please email me at vernon.l.oickle@ eastlink.ca but be warned, your comments may show up in a future column.

As I've said many times, free and open exchange of ideas, information and opinions is not only an essential component of a real democracy, but it's also a vital part of building an understanding of others, and that's the view from here.