Dear Editor,
Thank you for your response to my letter (‘Come to heel’ SN, February 10). I trust you will publish the following just as faithfully as my first.
Apparently, we were both tired when we read and wrote. Believe it or not, your editorial does contain the phrase “bring… to heal.” Yes h-e-a-l. Apparently, you first let Sir Shridath “… force the recalcitrant countries to come to heel” and later (top of second column) you say “…there is no external pressure to bring the procrastinators to heal.”
On re-reading the editorial to check for the right section, I ended up making the wrong reference for which I apologise. Might have saved you some time. But that was the phrase I was referring to. On my recheck there was some conflation of the two sections. My mind probably could not at the time grasp the fact that you had first brought someone to heel and then to heal. But had you double checked as I was forced to, that you did have both versions in the said editorial (Wednesday February 9), you would not have responded as you did.
I think you should now plead guilty to the lessercharge of overlooked typo (as I am now sure it was). But the original sin was yours.
Should you publish my explanation, I would forgo legal action for the amount of trauma you caused me in having prominent friends call to have a joke at my expense, not to mention the heart attack I nearly sustained when I read your response as I wondered then whether I had sustained a sudden attack of senility and whether I could ever trust my eyesight again!
But seriously, I hope the larger point is not lost on you. I have refrained steadfastly from troubling you with observations on the rest of your paper but the editorial I expect to live up to your usual impeccable standards.
Yours faithfully,
F Collins
Editor’s note
We apologise for the error.
