Letter writer C Anthony responds to Contractor General Greg Christie’s response to his letter published on June 29.

Dear Mr Christie,

I am genuinely flattered that a gentleman of your eminence and power would take the time to respond to a letter to the editor from one such as I.

I must urge you, nevertheless, and in all humility, to do exactly what you are encouraging me to do. That is to READ VERY CAREFULLY, thoughtfully and as objectively as you can, the full text of what I wrote — published primarily in The Gleaner, but more completely when both letters (as published) are combined. (Ignore the headlines chosen by the newspapers, if necessary, though nothing is especially wrong with them on this occasion).

If you accept my suggestion, you will observe (should be able to “see”) that I was sincerely careful NOT to accuse you of anything. I stated genuinely and factually that my original position was in support of your basic stance/position, as it appeared, while you just stated a list of facts. No “accusations”, against anyone, were even “implied”, as far as I could see — except, perhaps, for the deeply suspicious and/or cynical. (By the way, it may also be important for us all to always bear in mind a principle I often quote. It says: “Nothing that appears is as it appears”).

Be that as it may, you will note, from a careful reading of my letter, that I only began to “QUESTION motive” (Note: “question”, not “accusation”, or “assumption”), when the listing continued and was extended, with an apparent total disregard for the possible and/or evident implications/innuendos, etc, relative to YP Seaton and his company.

I accept your robust defence/presentation of your office’s consistence in “objectively” seeking and providing information, in accordance with your official mandate. I have no problem at all in believing your response of “no malice or mischief intended”.

I am just thinking that, in the circumstances, it would have done no damage to your “public image”, if you had taken the time and/or had been able to state/reiterate publicly (showing some appreciation of Mr Seaton’s position, as well as the counter-implications for your office) that it is/was NOT your intention to accuse (falsely) or imply any unfairness or impropriety on the part of YP Seaton, et al, but simply to provide the information, regardless of the “TIMING”.

Of course, if you have contrary evidence and/or believe that relevant persons are guilty of illegality, immorality, or criminal corruption, I would not expect you to speak against your conscience. Remember, however, that regardless of religious or non-religious conviction, it may very well be important for us to “do unto others as we would have them do unto us”.

Nuff respect, sir, to you and your office.

Peace and love.

C Anthony

Kingston 10

carltongor@gmail.com