Pet Peeves: Correcting a bogus number

A note came into the Gazette that complained about the Pet Peeves in the paper.

The complaint said that the paper should not allow such negative thoughts to be printed and that they are harmful. Pet Peeves, the letter said, should be eliminated, but it would be okay to continue with Okeydokes because they are positive.

Actually, some of the “negative” pet peeves have had a positive effect. As such, both the positive and negative are acceptable. That is the point.

Even so, not all make it to the page.

Some are eliminated because they are simply too nasty. Some have been like scratchings on a rest room wall, only without the telephone number. Others were directed at private citizens or concerns that are not of a public nature. A few pertained to upcoming elections.

Not all of the “positive” Okeydokes are published, either. They can be too personal or too self-serving.

A few slip through, however. One Pet Peeve about Colfax schools losing students to other districts should not have been published. The writer used a bogus number of 99 students lost to other districts.

Official figures show that 16 students have opted into the district, and 66 have opted out. That is a net of half of the number used in the Pet Peeve. And, of course, there are a variety of reasons for parents choosing to send their students to other schools, some as simple as proximity to the parent’s workplace.

Okeydokes have also been misused. People have submitted them to promote themselves or their family members. One such case was a public entity proclaiming how “awesome” it was. Such submissions are shameless self promotion and are not run if caught.

The idea behind this little section of Pet Peeves and Okeydokes is that quick and to the point expressions can be of value and interest. They can be informative. Many have been humorous and entertaining. It is just that such expressions need to be directed at general issues, rather than at people.

A while back, a Pet Peeve was published that simply said “Pet Peeves.” Now, that was harsh.

Gordon Forgey

Publisher