Dear Editor,
I seem to be Freddie Kissoon’s newest pet peeve, as if there isn’t enough for this political analyst to write about. I write letters and Stabroek News or Kaieteur News decides if they want to publish them. I decide which newspaper and when I want to send letters. Thus, I just have not sent anything to Kaieteur News in recent times. Stabroek News noted in its editor’s note to Mr Kissoon’s letter that I had provided my personal information many moons ago to that newspaper. Mr Kissoon states, “From Maxwell’s perspective it was dangerous for the paper to refer to him using the word, ‘correspondent’ because it puts him in the spotlight and this may cause others to pursue him/her and it may eventually have led to him/her being unmasked.
“Maxwell wrote that he/she objected to the use of the word, ‘correspondent’ and was merely a letter-writer.” This is the kind of intellectually deceitful analysis Mr Kissoon has been engaging in for years. Obviously, Freddie Kissoon knows exactly what I am thinking, what I want and don’t want, as well as the reasons for my letter to Stabroek News. There is manic obsession and then there is just plain old intellectual nonsense.
It appears that Mr Kissoon has a problem reading and comprehending the very NYT policy he cited, or is this yet another glaring example of his refusal to be intellectually scrupulous when in emotional agenda mode? That NYT policy, as quoted by Mr Kissoon in his letter, refers to “…the use of confidential news sources…” I guess in Kissoon’s own interpretive Shangri-La, a letter to the newspaper is the same as a ‘confidential news source’ provided to a journalist. Mr Kissoon needs to stop the hypocrisy and point to where in his numerous columns citing information from confidential sources, he has applied the NYT policy he wants others to implement.
Freddie Kissoon’s problem is not M Maxwell, it is Freddie Kissoon.
Yours faithfully,
M. Maxwell
