Dear Editor,
Regarding the follow-up from Michael Ferrier: This is exactly the reason why I am always miffed when I see under some letters to you “name withheld on request”. The USP wrote, in a not so nice way, to you about Mr. Ferrier and I reacted. As usual I attached my name to my letter. More so because I mentioned a person’s (Mr. Ferrier’s) name in my letter. Had I not done that then perhaps Mr. Ferrier would have had to formulate his response in a different way.
Thankfully Mr. Ferrier responded and he set the record straight. I also thank him for highlighting what he considers my omissions. It is his opinion, and I blame myself for that, because I am the person who wrote the letter and I should have made sure that there were no loopholes.
Believe it or not, I was not aware of any accusations of taxes owed by Mr. Ferrier until I read about it in that letter to you from the USP, But it seemed as if it worked out for the good, because it spunked Mr. Ferrier to let us have it.
My intention was definitely not to link him to the others and I apologize for not being more specific. I have been writing long enough to know better. No pun intended. Like I wrote, I know that Mr. Ferrier can represent himself, and he did, although I believe that there is much more that he could have mentioned.
Now even more I denounce that USP letter about him, to you.
Since the USP is writing letters to you, I assume that they also read the letters that you publish. So, I am letting you know that over the weekend I’ve had reactions from plenty of people who were pleased that I responded to the USP letter, because they too thought it was both childish as well as malicious. and that is not dignified representation.
By the way, the behavior of those heavy equipment drivers on the roads is becoming a menace to the traffic.
Russell A. Simmons
