If you work for a newspaper that has written critically about HB 2 and get an email from someone calling himself Dick Nibblerh, you can probably guess where it’s headed: “I’m confused by the backlash against the ‘bathroom law.’ If you have gender reassignment surgery, you can have your birth certificate changed to reflect your new gender. So the law only affects cross-dressing freaks like Bruce Jenner, who chooses to have tits and a dick. Why hasn’t he had the surgery, does he like to tit-fuck himself?”
We don’t know, Dick, but we’re gonna guess not.
Cecil has a more constructive idea for those, like him, “who do not want our wives and daughters at risk”: “The transgender community can use single-room bathrooms that one person can lock behind, that have one access point. You see them in numerous places now, in malls, different stores, movie houses, etc. A law should be put on the books that requires businesses to install single-person restroom facilities, and that removes any discrimination. … For all the singers and bands that have left and did not play in North Carolina, I think they are very smallminded.”
William Moose takes issue with our May 11 story about parking shortages in downtown Durham: “The underlying assumption that plenty of parking should be easily available to all who wish to park downtown is deeply flawed, and the criticism of charging for parking is misdirected. Most large and thriving cities don’t come close to meeting the demand for parking, and many have stopped trying to meet this demand with good reason. After all, what results from endless free and/or cheap parking? Quite simply more driving, more traffic, and more car-oriented development, all of which bring consequently negative social, health, and environmental impacts.
“… Finally, I think the situation highlighted in the article in which the city is choosing between prioritizing affordable housing and parking is frankly tragic. One issue is about the right to be able to easily leave a car for a few hours in the city and the other is about the right to have a decent affordable place to live in the city. Which feels more dire or critical to you?”
Finally, Elizabeth H. wants to “grouse a bit about your piece on the Outer Banks,” which appeared in last week’s Summer Guide. “Though I respect the fact that the author wants to take his dogs everywhere he goes, it seems to me that is likely the minority opinion among vacationersno offense to his pets.”
His pets are, in fact, offended. But go on. “It feels a little unfair to judge the selection of restaurants based on whether one can take their dog there. I personally do not want to have to eat with a slobbering dog nearby. I would guess there are more than a few vacationers who share that opinion. Similarly, I don’t want someone’s unleashed dog approaching me on the beach, disrupting my vacation, nor do I want to worry about pet waste on the beach. … I am wondering which vacation spots the author would recommend as adequately dog-friendly utopias where dogs can wander and frolic leashless, where most restaurants enthusiastically encourage dogs to take their place among diners? I want to know, because that is likely a place I want to avoid when planning my next vacation.”
Want to see your name in bold? Email us at backtalk@indyweek.com, comment on our Facebook page or INDYweek.com, or hit us up on Twitter: @indyweek.
