The author makes the point that the protesters at the Allen Street gates need to re-evaluate their purpose, and that their initial cause was to protest the war ("You can stop protesting now that the war is over," April 22 letter). I can't help but wonder whether he has actually spoken to anyone sitting at the Allen Street gates. Instead of writing a letter to the Collegian and stereotyping ("tie-dyed breasts") the people sitting at the gates, perhaps he should ask them what their purpose is now.

Maybe he could start a conversation as he experiences the "general pain" of having to walk five more steps around them. Is it completely unreasonable to think that their purpose may have grown and developed as the war continued? If he engaged in a simple discussion with them, he may have a solid answer rather than having to speculate in the newspaper.

If his main problem as a senior at Penn State is the "mess" at the Allen Street gates, I guess he can only hope to one day believe as strongly in something as the people sitting at those gates do. Who is more foolish, the people protesting our government's policy and world issues, or the person protesting an "eyesore" in a small town in Pennsylvania?