Weak challenge to Pastor Cuffie’s article

THE EDITOR: I read (with a bit of amusement) a letter which appeared in your paper on April 15, 2004, under the caption “Make sure references are up-to-date.” The writer, an Edmund Nigel Lall, attempted to challenge a few of Pastor Winston Cuffie’s references in a recent article with the headline, “How Condoms Kill.” Lall did show some maturity by clearly commending Pastor Cuffie for “raising some valid points on the failure of condoms, that I do hope readers will take note of.”

However, in the few cases where he sought to indicate that Cuffie’s references were not up-to-date, (even advising the clergyman “to dig deeper for up-to-date facts”) Lall himself failed to produce any of the “up-to-date” facts he claimed were missing. He himself refused “to dig deeper,” it would seem. Instead the letter writer chose the very weak route of supporting his case with statements such as “perhaps there are more up-to-date facts . . . the materials used in manufacturing today’s condoms may not be the same as those used in these studies” and so on. I really found this amusing. All his “rebuttals” were based on assumptions.

Cuffie’s work was of a high standard. He presented a well-structured, reader-friendly piece, with compelling empirical data. If Lall had chosen to “dig a litter deeper,” he would have discovered that the references quoted by Cuffie, were those already updated by the same sources, and other credible authorities as well. The “old dates” which Lall quoted were obviously the best he could access. But that’s what happens when people like Lall limit their research only to websites. I couldn’t imagine that in this enlightened age, Lall would be ignorant about the 14 percent failure rate of condoms in preventing pregnancy. I get the impression that he is an inexperienced student who is merely a victim of the brashness of youth. He however comes over as ambitious, so I guess he will improve with time.

MONELLE DE GANNES
Curepe