Gene Dorio: Dialogue and debate or insults and defamation?
By Signal Contributor
Monday, June 19th, 2017

The Signal’s Letter to the Editor of June 13, “Scare tactics and water merger,” discussing my June 6 commentary “Avoid ‘Love Triangle’ of Support,” is a prime example in this country of why dialogue and debate have transformed into insults and defamation.

I write this letter a mile from Capitol Hill after lobbying Congress members the previous day for women’s rights. The day before we were also within one mile of the baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia, where some of these congressional members came under attack.

We are not paid for our lobbying efforts; we arrived here out of passion for women who are underrepresented. But we saw paid lobbyists argue their points with different motivation, mostly self-serving and for profit.

I stand by my commentary in The Signal and would happily debate these issues in an open forum. “Following the money” might reveal the financial incentives of those involved in this discussion.

It should not lead, though, to deprecation of one’s professional acumen in lieu of the content of the argument.

Gene Uzawa Dorio, M.D.
Saugus

 

About the author

Signal Contributor

Signal Contributor

Gene Dorio: Dialogue and debate or insults and defamation?

The Signal’s Letter to the Editor of June 13, “Scare tactics and water merger,” discussing my June 6 commentary “Avoid ‘Love Triangle’ of Support,” is a prime example in this country of why dialogue and debate have transformed into insults and defamation.

I write this letter a mile from Capitol Hill after lobbying Congress members the previous day for women’s rights. The day before we were also within one mile of the baseball field in Alexandria, Virginia, where some of these congressional members came under attack.

We are not paid for our lobbying efforts; we arrived here out of passion for women who are underrepresented. But we saw paid lobbyists argue their points with different motivation, mostly self-serving and for profit.

I stand by my commentary in The Signal and would happily debate these issues in an open forum. “Following the money” might reveal the financial incentives of those involved in this discussion.

It should not lead, though, to deprecation of one’s professional acumen in lieu of the content of the argument.

Gene Uzawa Dorio, M.D.
Saugus