Being an engi-nerd, I rarely get the chance or the motivation to be a critic, but Mr. Baylor's "Pink and Blue" letter of April 2 overcomes all my critical inhibitions. First, please understand, I don't claim to be a good critic, but I'll give it my best shot.

Rarely have I read a letter so riddled with facts unsubstantiated by evidence, and arguments which lack even basic validity. Am I off to a good start?

Mr. Baylor writes, "the homosexual lifestyle is destructive to the basic unit of society, the family." Actually I know several "basic society units" which function well with gay male and lesbian components. Do you have facts which prove otherwise?

I don't really understand the statement "any nation or society that ignores that truth (that homosexuality destroys families, I presume) is in the latter stages of decay." With this you should offer further explanation, because without proof I simply don't believe it.

"The homosexual community has proven by their actions that theirs is not a reasonable or responsible lifestyle." How so? "They rely not on argument, but intimidation." I only know of lesbians and gay men being spit on and having their doors set on fire. It seems they're more intimidated than I am.

I think one of the crowning points of reason in the letter comes with your phrase "Homosexuality is a choice. One hundred percent of homosexuals were born to heterosexual tendencies." I have an uncontrollable urge to liken that statements to one of my own. "Impotency is a choice. One hundred percent of impotent people were born to non-impotent parents with non-celibate tendencies." I'll let the reader mull over that statement.

I don't mean to be all negative, but like I said I'm not very good at being a critic. One aspect that I thought had great potential was that "Blue and white" or "pink and blue" thing. I think you could whip up a lot of mindless support with a slogan like that.

All in all though, I think you need professional help. I would suggest English 202C with Ben Click, an excellent course. My writing used to be as disjointed as yours, but Click taught me everything I know. With a little effort, I'm sure your writing could be as coherent as anybody's and probably much more so than mine.

Until you learn to coherently support an opinion, I, and the people who think like me, will simply consider your "discourses" to be the rambling diatribes of a senseless fool. It seems to me that you do more to hurt your cause than to help it.