I must say in response to a letter published on Nov. 13 by Daniel N. Clark, which was directed at me, that the author seems to have misread the letter if he really believes I made a threat of violence directed at Jerry Votendahl. Quite frankly, I and others who read Clark's letter believe the writer simply wanted to spread a little more trash talk around with a false statement.
Mr. Clark should re-read the definitions of "civil discourse" and "ethics." Certainly the folks would agree that reading my letter, (Supporting our sheriff and local police) on Nov. 8 absolutely did not speak of violence or threats and, in addition, does speak of Daniel N. Clark's huge lapse of civility and ethics in accusing me of something I did not say .
Perhaps Clark wanted to simply advise people he might be above what normal citizens try to accomplish with their letters (opinions).
I, on the other hand, spoke the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - plus simply invited Votendahl to a sporting event and never mentioned violence.
By the way, Clark doesn't know if I'm physically stronger, more aggressive, older than Votendahl or anything else concerning me. To me, that represents untruths.
In the real world, Clark doesn't know me and he, like Votendahl, owes some apologies! Get to it!
Folks, if possible, please read both letters and decide for yourselves.