I cannot believe that you would publish "Travels with Julia" (Sept. 26) as is, without requiring the author to do some rewrites. He has included a lot of words that I have never seen before. Portions of this article were almost unreadable.

If he is he trying to impress us with his vocabulary, it didn't work. Rather than impress, it makes the writing appear amateurish.

Here are some examples of poor word choices that I found as I read his article:

- hareing
- hierocracy
- coolth
- Barolo and saltimbocca
- hoardings
- lotes
- uxorious
- wonky
- terroir
- squinny-eyed
- jeremiad
- unignorable
- Western Platonist
- dubieties

Toward the end of his article he quotes from the Oxford English Dictionary. It appears that he had either that book in hand, or a thesaurus close by, as he wrote.

Please, no more articles like this. It takes all the enjoyment out of reading what should have been an interesting story when one has to stop to figure out what thought the author is attempting to convey.

P.S. I am not an ignorant person. I read extensively, studied Latin and Greek in both high school and college, and took vocabulary-building and writing courses at Seattle University.

Paul Hovind
Bellevue

Photo was too graphic

The picture on the front of Pacific Northwest ("Outsource This!," Aug. 29) was appalling.

With all of the violence in society today, and all of the other pictures pertaining to the cover story, why would you want to exploit the use of small handguns? My first impression was of a drive-by shooting. The rearview mirror is prominent in the picture, and the only other object was the gun with the trigger being pulled.

Of all of the pictures pertaining to this story, this is the only offensive picture. In fact, was a picture really even necessary? The story would have been just as effective without the graphic picture.

Since when does a Sunday supplement need to resort to this sort of sensationalism?

Margaret Rimmer
Seattle

A bash for a bash

All those people who were here legally or illegally ("Latino Voices," Sept. 19) all shared one thing, all were U.S. bashers . . . as far as the ones who are here illegally I can only say the sooner they are all back to Mexico or wherever the better. I'm sure the family would have a lot of time to sit around.

Also "toeless" would get wonderful care in Mexico. Why not just all go back to wherever they came from if the U.S. is so darn bad?

I have never heard such negative whining since I saw Kerry giving a speech. I would like to see a Norte Americano go down to Mexico, Central America, South America and give these dog-and-pony shows. I don't think a lot of people down there would be pleased. Why not try to smuggle a few people to Mexico and see how Mexico treats them?

Your article should have been named "Why I Hate the U.S." Glad I did not spend anything to read the tripe.