As a newspaper editor I am always happy to correct the record, especially when someone points out that something we printed contradicts our own standards or style.

Word nerds, like me, regularly pick nits — what is the Times crossword blog if not a nit-pickers’ delight? Why is asking if a cobbler has a crust within the rules, but raising a question about a literary issue out of bounds or imply a threat?

Readers know I’m not one to raise the anti-Semitism flag too quickly, but there’s a creepy insinuation about your use of the word “mainstream.” I wonder if you would have had the same reaction, or would the unnamed Times-men you cite, if this hadn’t involved Wiesel and the query hadn’t come from a Jewish newspaper.

mr carroll,

as you can see above, it was not only you who objected, although i think you are well aware of that by now

the point i would like to make is many more who daily scower the puzzle for inaccuracies and errors did not make note of the clue

my assessment is, well, welcome to the mainstream

the crossword puzzle community, IMHO,word-nerds as they are, hardly fit the profile of wanting to create ill feelings or incite trouble or dredge up past hurtful reminders

the professor, and his cause, have been and will continue to be sponsored by myself, of course, as well as many others, however, it looks a little heavy handed to pounce on a crossword puzzle editor, his staff and the newspaper over this

i can also share with you, that some at NYT saw your response as a threat, to make a correction or else, and i have to tell you this is the part that was unacceptable to me

to stay mainstream implies rolling with the punches and my advise would be to soften the approach to an error, especially an unintentional one, with a more positive highlighting of why it is wrong and identify who it may have offended

always allow the other to save face, just like shimon perez talks about in today’s NYT feature

anyway be well

frankD