DISQUS

Nick, I don't like this idea. One of the reasons I subscribe to "The Telegraph" is that I value what columnists, reporters, and editors consider to be newsworthy.

The "Telegraph" has already made it easy for readers to comment on news and opinion.

I'm much more interested in the opinions of your syndicated columnists, particularly because they provide an informed and balanced counterweight to your editorials. Don't get me wrong, as a progressive, I am generally in agreement with you editorial positions. But it's healthy to have responsible conservative opinions as well.

So I vote no. Please keep the syndicated op-eds.

Please DON'T open Pandora's box, and run these (when you think they are worthy) in the print edition! These candidates are already covered in news stories, and I wouldn't want their pitches to voters to clog up op-ed space.

I have no objections to your running candidate/surrogate articles running online.

Yes, you and your staff were fair. You follow a lead whenever it surfaces. Just as with the Julia Earl stories, you served your readers well with this one.

Nick,

I read Eduardo's column a few minutes ago and liked it very much.

I have been very concerned about all the immigrant-bashing in the news lately, and I think this new column serves as an important corrective.

I agree with those who were critical of Wolfe's approach to the story. The "attitude" was inappropriate for an incident that could have resulted in death and injury.

The good news is that at least two pairs of eyes vetted the article. The bad news is that those eyes didn't see that the "clever" approach misjudged the serious nature of the incident.

Finally, please, I beg all "Telegraph" writers to never, never, try to write in the style of a young teenager's argot. It's hackeyed and already stale by the time the story is published.