You have just read something in the paper. Your blood pressure and hackles are up. Some writer has violated fairness, truth and the American Way, and unless set right (or left), there is a distinct possibility that others (less informed than you), may be swayed by this pernicious (i.e., harmful, deadly, evil, insidious, spiteful and malicious) piece of error-filled newsprint.

Of course, if you are just a political party hack doing your bit to spread the talking points, then there is little hope for you, and you can skip the following tutorial.

Step one: State your credentials. This is actually easier than it may appear because almost anything can establish you as someone "to whom we should refer."

You can use a title: Dr. H. Brohn, Ph.D., Professor of Important Stuff, College Known Only Locally, Somewhere, Iowa.

Typical, however, is the "I am wise and superior" credential. This is done with an air of bemused superiority, and it looks something like this, "I was somewhat amused by the attempt in Snort's column to …."

Ironically, the writer can claim to be an expert by being completely ignorant. "I NEVER read Snort's articles, but …"

Step two: Describe the article by whatever pejorative is now popular.

Currently, the preferred term is "rant." This changes from time to time, so check the other letters to be sure you are not out of date.

Step three: Attack the writer. The writer is crazy, stupid, evil, unskilled and probably physically ugly. Even worse, he or she may give you cooties if you stop and talk with them. Assuming, of course, you can get past their halitosis.

Step four: Ignore the content of the article you are attacking. There are five approaches here that seem to be popular:

a) Never mention the content at all.

b) Zero in on single words or phrases and ignore everything else.

Frankly, I was surprised by the prevalence of this approach. A columnist can write an entire article on the use of yak hair to make sweaters and mention in passing that Nixon had a yak hair sweater. This will be followed by a letter to the editor demanding that their subscription to the paper be canceled because of its pro-Nixon stance.

Part of this is just general illiteracy. A recent federal study found that the majority of college graduates could not read with enough comprehension to understand the argument of an average editorial.

Add to this the propensity of many to go nuts at the first sight of certain words or phrases, and presto … a discourse on racism when the content of the guilty article was about economics.

c) Ignore adjectives and qualifiers. After all, the letter writer knows what the author actually meant to say.

d) Reinvent the author's argument and then argue against your own invention. Actually, this works pretty well. The article under attack was probably published a week or two ago, and practically no one read it, so the letter writer can reinvent it any way he or she chooses.

e) Plead ignorance. As in, "I certainly don't know where the writer got his information." This implies that you know a lot about the topic without having to demonstrate that you know anything at all.

Step five: This approach is the opposite of 4e and is only advised for people with no life. You spend an entire week researching every word written in the guilty article. You then state with authority, "Peter Dryfus noted in 1593 that certain New Guinea natives once referred to donkeys as elephants, therefore Snort makes another characteristic error in suggesting an allegorical connection between donkeys and Democrats."

Step six: If you have one, drop a nuke. There are the obvious nukes like "racist," "fascist" and "hater," but some come and go like fashion trends. At one time, a person could say that they were "offended" and all discourse was supposed to end. Other nukes no longer in vogue are "mean spirited," and the multisyllable mouthful, "misogamist."

There is a problem with dropping a nuke. If it doesn't take out your enemy on the first strike, your opponent actually gets stronger every time it's used.

Of course, the letter writer could just address the issue in a logical and fair fashion without name calling. But would that be any fun?

Besides, how would anyone know how bright and superior you are if you did that?