The problem is that a letter that makes an excellent point might not make it with the required berevity and clarity. A letter to the editor might read: > I sa

The problem is that a letter that makes an excellent point might not make it with the required berevity and clarity. A letter to the editor might read: > I saw on your article about the size of foodstuffs that food items are not getting smaller - actually people are just getting bigger. Very interesting article, quite funny and relevant as I've been collecting food items since I was a child and can confirm that this isn't always true. I've got a few exapmles where it holds, but I also have a kit kat from when I was 18 (born 1979) that used to be 500g and now they are 250g as standard. I'm a big fan and this is the first time I have spotted a huge glaring error! Please explain that one! Clearly that would need to be reframed. I'm not particularly good, but I can see why a newspaper might want to shorten it: > In last week's article The Economist argued that foodstuffs were not getting smaller, however I own a standard kit-kat from the 1997 that is double the size of ones available in shops today. Thoughts? The above is probably an improvement from a readers perspective, conveys the points of the original message, and they aren't usually attributed to a specific, identifiable person anyway (usually something like John from London) so I don't think there is any huge scandal here.