An e-mail conversation: how to deal with letter-planters; let's try the Town Square rule for determining legitimate letters.

JIM FRISINGER: I admit it. We at The Dallas Morning News sometimes get burned by mass-mailed, boilerplate letters, astroturf. Always e-mails, likely grabbed off the Web with people slapping their names on them and sending them off to the letters editor.

It's also an arras race. They're getting sneakier.

But I have to admit I have sympathies with the Marias and Jacks out there who don't have the ability to hire a speechwriter or writing aide. They spot something online they agree with, with easy directions on how to send it to the local newspaper, and ship it on down here. Newspapers can be unwelcome institutions to outsiders. In a way, the Internet is encouraging readers to do what we're unable to do on our own very well--encourage fresh letter writers to jump into the fray!

So the rule we follow: Strict boilerplate we do not publish. Period. But we think there are many shades of gray. And if we like the letter a lot, we may ask a letter writer to write it in his or her own words.

LUANNE TRAUD: Jim's sympathies are not misguided. While we would never knowingly publish turf, we are not as quick as some to indict as plagiarists the misguided readers who happen upon websites that encourage them to send letters to the editor and readily supply the words.

We circulate in the poorest corner of Pennsylvania with a high illiteracy rate and a readership that in just the past decade has realized that it can speak out without the coal or political bosses taking away their livelihood. Many are still timid about their writing skills and are easily seduced by websites that share their ideology and encourage them to use already prepared letters. The organizations behind this, especially those that offer prizes for getting "letters" in print, scald me. I admire those in NCEW who, in fighting the turf war, find the time to track down these sites. But what good does it do? We can run these letters through the sniff test. We can post on the listserv, send them through Google, hit all the suspected sites, and educate our readers one by one or through columns. These are all fine defensive moves. But what I want to know is how do we take it to the next level? How do we go on the offensive?

JIM FRISINGER: Here's a three-part answer.

1. Give ourselves a pat on the back for being wary of those who try to take advantage and know we won't catch them all. Let's not be obsessive about it! 2. Take time in newsprint to discuss why turf is a problem. People will understand, but we rarely take the time to teach them how a newspaper works. 3. Return to fundamental principles: When I get stuck, I go back to the Town Square Rule. Letters to the editor are most akin to a gathering in the town square where people discuss/argue the issues of the day. The two most important things are: A. The people are who they say they are (on the town square, they are recognized by face as neighbors) and, B. They are expressing what they believe in--which is self-evident in both letters and on the town square. Quibbling over how much of their letter contains phrases unique to them, while important, is of second-tier importance.

So let's move on to another split-the-baby problem. A friend told me she was a volunteer letter writer for a recent suburban school board campaign. I never see the letters--they go to a suburban section. She wrote lots of letters and had other people sign them. In each case, each letter was unique; and she tried to make the letters reflect some of the unique points of view of the letter writer (one being from a recent immigrant). Each one was indeed a supporter of the school board candidate, and was happy to affix their name to the letter and have it published in the newspaper. Any problem here? Is the volunteer letter writer crossing problem boundaries? (She confessed, that after writing a lot of these, her creative juices started to fail and she had a hard time not repeating herself.)

LUANNE TRAUD: The scenario you describe is just as dishonest as electronic turf generators. By finding others to pretend the words came from them, your friend was not only conspiring to commit plagiarism but also flagrantly violating letters policies that rein in how often each writer will be published.

Fortunately, candidate-sponsored letter mills aren't that hard to spot after a couple of submissions. There is a sameness of style and as your friend found out a dearth of fresh ideas. Let's hope your friend's keyboard melted during her burnout.

Having said all that, I would be remiss not to sing the praises of those who volunteer to help a poor writer frame her argument in grammatically acceptable prose. I have readers, many of them elderly, who call with great things to say but lack the skills to put pen to paper. The lucky ones find someone to transcribe.

Getting back to your friend and to turf, it's the same thing only on a different scale. I understand your Town Square analogy, however, I do think it is important to quibble whether phrases are unique to each writer. When did you last print a letter quoting extensively from the Bible or from a dead president? Do you not either trash these letters or edit to find the phrases unique to that particular writer? How is this any different?

JIM FRISINGER: My friend made her mass letter-writing confession to me post-election at a dinner party as I was walking out the door. I will give her a talking to! But look at it this way: We published letters in the last 10 days from Sen. John Cornyn and Jim Wilkinson, White House deputy assistant to the president. I have no idea whether these two men wrote every word of their letters; I'm not sure it matters whether they worked with a paid staff assistant; I do know they'll stand 100 percent behind those words. Your elderly letter writers who have a hard time composing a good letter are just out of luck unless they have an angel, eh? I think we mostly agree, but define the gray area a little differently.

YOU GUESSED IT: VEGGIE BURGERS

Whatever happened to the good old days, when 4th of July was just Independence Day and the worst things we had to fear was traffic jams and wayward fireworks? Recent findings by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that food poisoning from inadequately grilled hamburgers and hot dogs should now top this list.

Deadly pathogens in meat products have been sickening millions of consumers annually and killing 9,000. The key offenders are E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is shifting its Meat and Poultry Hotline into high gear to help consumers survive the 4th of July grilling ritual.

Fortunately, American manufacturers have developed a great variety of veggie burgers and soy dogs....

Jim Frisinger is letters editor at The Morning News. E-mail [e-mail]

Luanne Traud is editorial page editor at the Herald-Standard in Uniontown, Pennsylvania. E-mail [e-mail]