We enjoy mailwho doesn't?and appreciate your correspondence. Please send us letters. And photos, good golly photos. We will print anything.
Letters to The New Yinzer should be sent electronically to firstname.lastname@example.org or physically through the USPS to: The New Yinzer, 277 Main Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15201.
Sent: Fri 14 May 04
Subject: The Scentral Station
First let we complement you on the lovely article you wrote about Scentral Station. It was smart and enjoyable to read.
I am a jewelry manufacturer from New York, who met Joan Barlow the Owner of Scentral Station at a gift show in Pittsburgh and visited her store and decided to place jewelry items for sale and to make custom pieces for her to sell.
I have a friend in Carnegie who produces many items for the Pittsburgh market and you probably know him or know of him. His name is Ken Abel and he is a writer of books about Pittsburgh and manufactures the greates laminated business cards you have ever seen. All cards are two sided and the backs have special information that will be of help to the purchaser. as they will keep the cards and also, they give them to their customers, etc for along time. They fit the wallet and are always available.
I'm sure he would make an interesting interview for you.
BTW He is deeply in to healing and has contact with many of the must literate people in that field.
Ask him to send you some samples.
You may feel free to send me an e-mail of your articles.
BTW I live in St. Petersburg, Florida.
Many friends in the Pittsburgh area, and many acquaintances from Carnegie Mellon University.
Caio! for now. Lorenzo
Sent: Sat 22 May 04
Subject: Re:photo essay
Regarding the photo essay by Dr. Brian King...If you asked me the question, "Was it good for you?"(in a slightly suggestive manner), I'd have to reply, "Why yes it was. Was it good for you?".
Very Truly Yours,
From: Becky Katterson
Sent: Sat 22 May 04
Subject: not reading ayn rand too late
Dear Mr. Isenberg,
Having read much Rand, while not always agreeing with
her, I have to say that your article screams that you
haven't read her. I don't mean to be critical, but
you should know that the main stabs your article takes
at Objectivist philosophy, at love and selfishness,
sound completely absurd to one familiar with her
philosophy. Love is the central theme in both Rand's
main novels, and selfishness is Rand's own
shock-factor word - reading reveals that when she
discusses selfishness it includes not noticing other
people, and certainly never acting in relation to them
as you did in your bus experiment. Much more Peter
Keating than Howard Roark. But what you hit on, the
word selfishness among many, reflects on many ACTUAL
holes in objectivist philosophy that you didn't begin
to talk about.
I appreciate your alternative views, but you should
have at least tried to finish reading something a
little less trivial than anthem before you try to