Her columns, being all the aforementioned, really do not belong in the op-ed section of any newspaper. I have seen others write-in about how tasteless her column is, and it is also obvious that her bias is nothing less than downright hate, thus making any argument she has skewed as to make any points from her moot.

So, with a lot of readers in agreement that her column is nothing but hate-filled rhetoric — why would you even want to consider her column valid for print?

With so many syndicated columnists to choose from that are much more credible than Molly Ivins, why not choose to run a journalist that could present a sane and educated opposition to the right that would not embarrass those who hold similar views but not in the absolute hate-filled and disrespectful manner than Ms. Ivins chooses to express her discontent?

Rev. Kevin Pearl, Springfield

If the Rev. Pearl read the Opinion page a little more carefully he would see that many of us (not all of us, though) like Ms. Ivins exactly the way she is.

The Rev. Pearl states later that "a lot of readers" agree with him that Ms. Ivins writes nothing but "hate-filled rhetoric." A lot of readers (not all readers, though) would agree with me that Cal Thomas writes nothing but hate-filled rhetoric.

But I would never call for Mr. Thomas' column to be removed from the Opinion page. No, if I don't like what Mr. Thomas has to say in any given column, I simply stop reading it.

I respectfully suggest that the Rev. Pearl do the same whenever he feels bothered by one of Ms. Ivins' columns. I suspect he would feel much happier reading only those columnists whose sanity and level of education match his own.

Joe Hughes, Springfield