Uproar over Proctor's cartoon is an example of 'over-sensitive' readers

To the spate of people who have inundated the Daily Wildcat with letters deriding Josh Proctor's cartoon, may I just say, emphatically, WAA! As a wise man once said, "Call the waambulance." Quit being so over-sensitive! If you are emotionally unable to deal with a small dose of iconoclasm, the problem lies with you, not Josh Proctor. And to Adam Hillier, who has shown empirically that the comic strip is "not appropriate nor amusing" (sic), I congratulate you on your proof: Pope good, Josh bad Ä q.e.d.

I would like to say one more thing, and that is that I was incensed, infuriated, outraged, and offended by Monday's (April 28) Planet X cartoon. Mr. Kelman, have you no respect for headhunters and cannibals, their hapless victims and the dedicated members of the Dept. of "Game and Wildlife?" I will not even begin to explain the hurt I felt upon reading that strip. It is entirely irresponsible to mock and ridicule cultures. You should be silenced! Someone should take all your pens and paper away from you and throw you in a dank cell for eternity! I am also offended by the portrayal of: cats in The Cynic Route; bald, large-eyed males in The Deep End; and saguaro cacti in Lizard Bump. Editor! What are you thinking? Why must you publish these meretricious and offensive 'toons without "open discussion, hard evidence, or testable ideas [which is] a practice known as prejudice?" (from Matt Iles's letter, Monday) The practice of publishing a cartoon without first opening it to a roundtable discussion is pernicious at best, a capital crime at worst. Is nothing sacred? Have you no soul, Editor?

By Patrick Mause (letter)
Arizona Daily Wildcat
May 5, 1997