Dear Ms Reaves: This letter is a response to your article in the magazine section of May 3, Livid in the Loop. This article is quite problematic.  As you might suspect, your article is one that would evoke an emotional respotse, particularly by those of us who are blind that read it. From my perspective the problem with your article is not the question posed,  Rather, it was your response to it. Personally, I believe that the person who posed the question had a right to feel angry and hurt by the way comshe was treated.  On the other hand, the blind person who was grabbed prior to the verbal exchange might also have had a right to feel defensive.  First of all, let me say that it was not appropriate for the blind person to have snapped at this individual if she tried to keep him out of traffic.  On the other hand, it is not appropriate to bodily grab a blind person while he is walking down the street, just as it is not appropriate to grab a sighted person doing the same thing.  A better way to approach this dilema would have been to verbally ask the blind person if he were ok, or perhaps she might have verbally pointed out that the blind person was about to walk into traffic before offering further assistance.  Another thing the writer might have done was to simply ask the blind person if he needed help.  He could have either said yes and accepted the help offered or If the answer would have been no, the writer could have respected his right to decline assistance by not offering any further help. In defense of the writer posing the question you attempted to address, I'm sure this person was startled to see the blind person walking into traffic and without thinking very much about it, did the first thing that came to her mind, hold the blind person back to keep him from eminent danger.  On the other hand, the blind person was in all likelyhood startled and angry himself when he was grabbed.  And it is these feelings of anger which may have prompted him to snap at the individual trying to help, something that he shouldn't have done and in all likelyhood wouldn't have done had he had time to think about his response. It seems to me that there was enough emotion on both sides of the exchange to evoke immediate action and reaction by both parties rather than reasoned responses. The real problem with your article as I see it was the way you  responded.  You strongly suggested to the writer that if she were to see that blind person again, she should bite him in the ankle and then scream, "rabid dog, rabid dog!" Though you probably meant for your response to be sort of tongue and cheak, you forgot one thing.  As a newspaper columnist and as one who's job it is to advise people on questions they might have regarding interactions they have with others, you are seen at least by some people as an authority figure.  Put another way, there are people who might actually take you seriously and that is perhaps the most damning peace of this entire article. You refer to the blind person as a jerk for snapping at the lady who wished to help.  Though I will not refer to you as a jerk personally, certainly your advice to this woman is about as low and repugnant as any I have come across. You are right to point out that the blind person should have been more courteous in his interactions with people.  At the same time, you are compromising your professionalism with the response you gave.  As an author-columnist, you should do what you can to hold yourself out as a roll model rather than to advocate savagery. Along with this letter, I will send you a copy of courtessy rules of blindness which might serve to guide you in future responses, should you be consulted again with a similar inquiry. Sincerely, David Meyer, President National Federation of the Blind of Illinois Chicago Chapter