We may not always agree with columnists and tv pundits, but how do we react?A television pundit takes a position with which you disagree in the strongest possible terms. Would you:A) Write him an angry e-mail and call his expertise into question.B) Write to him and focus on his argument and why you find it mistakenC) Ignore the matter altogether.D) Write to the president of the network and threaten to boycott the channel unless they fire the pundit. “A” is not only disrespectful, but it is an ineffective way to give criticism that will be taken to heart. It also won’t make you feel any better. “C” doesn’t do either of you a service, and “D” violates Life Principle #4, Be Fair. After all, the punishment should fit the crime, and banishing someone from the airwaves simply because you disagree with that person is an extreme and unjust response to the situation. Only “B” will both meet your need to express your concern and be likely to persuade the columnist to rethink his position, or at least to consider seriously what you have to say. Also, our democracy is based on the idea that the way to fight troubling speech is with more speech, not with stifling those with whom one disagrees.Bottom line: Life Principle #3, Respect Others, applies to how we treat not only our friends, family members, and co-workers, but the columnists we read in the paper. Temper that impulse to get the nasties out through an e-mail rant, and everyone-including you-will be the better for it.By the way, there are countries in the world where you don’t have to worry about being confronted with noxious, objectionable, or unpopular speech—because the government prohibits it. Would you really prefer to live in such a culture over one in which the marketplace of ideas is unfettered?