Although numerous letters to the editor appear on the pages of The Stanford Daily, readers also submit comments through its Web site, www.stanforddaily.com. The following is a sampling of reader responses to the Oct. 30 editorial, “Email: The enemy of action?”

“Skeptical” on Oct. 30, at 3 p.m.:

Expressing one’s views loudly in a public forum in solidarity with a crowd of the like-minded does not increase their truth of these views over those expressed quietly in emails. Despite the assertions of some, it is an inconvenient truth that group consensus does not prove truth — ask Galileo, who was condemned for his views by the consensus of the Inquisition!

Not everyone wants to man the barricades, take to the streets or shout down dissenters for something that happened halfway across the country to someone else. It may just not be important enough to make it a personal crusade or to spend an evening venting about it. Moreover, only a masochist wants to stand up to a mob and express unpopular views, particularly since the demonstrated tendency of mobs is not to listen to reason.

Thus, free speech in the form of emails should be welcomed! After all, resort to the power and persuasiveness of the written word in the face of hostility, unreason and even physical danger has a distinguished record in the history of civilization. It should be celebrated, not criticized, in a self-proclaimed liberal (in the classical sense) institution of higher learning. At the least, any self-respecting op-ed writer should value putting opinions in writing!

“Meltdown at the Stanford Daily?” on Oct. 30, at 11 p.m.

The editorial team seems to be self-destructing before us.

Today’s offering is certainly one of the more stupid and dishonest editorials from Daily staff in recent memory. Who or what is this article arguing against?

This part is particularly bad: “From a moral standpoint, criticisms launched against a panel for discussing Jena-6 stand out amongst the crowds of unconstructive critical emails as particularly odious.”

The use of this straw man argument is especially disappointing and shows a clear lack of ability or willingness on the part of The Daily editors to provide honest analysis. I haven’t heard anyone criticize the mere act of wanting to discuss Jena 6. Instead, it seems that critics took issue with the implied purpose of the event, which was titled “Modern-Day Lynching: A Look into the Horror.” There is no question mark after the word “lynching.” It is clear that the event’s organizers intended the purpose of the event (just look at the title!) to be to reinforce the (mistaken) notion that the Jena 6 events should be seen as a call to arms against supposedly rampant “institutional racism”.

Of course, it would have been perfectly acceptable for The Daily to have attempted to make the case that what happened in Jena was, in fact, a modern-day lynching. The Daily would have been wrong in arguing this, but at least they would have been offering a legitimate argument without mischaracterizing critics and without lazily and dishonestly attacking nonexistent straw man positions.

Shame on the editorial board! You guys no doubt know better and can do better.