Readers ask, we answer. Some recent examples:

1. Loyal reader Michael, a self-described fan of Points, telephoned May 22 and urged us to reprint Tom Friedman’s May 18 column in The New York Times titled, “Obama and the Jews.” He said the column was important in that it dispelled the myth that Barack Obama was a secret Muslim and that he was eager for TDMN to share that information with its readers.

I, too, enjoyed the column – as I do most Friedman columns. Sometimes we publish Friedman on our op-ed pages. (It’s been slim pickins so far this year, though, as Friedman was on a book leave from the NYT from January through April.) We chose not to publish this particular column, however, mainly because we’d already dismissed several times on our pages rumors about Obama being Muslim.

For example, we published an editorial Feb. 28 where we called such allegations a “smear” and explained how unfounded they were. And on March 23, we published an op-ed column by Farhad Manjoo, a staff writer at Salon.com, which also firmly debunked the rumor. With more than 300 op-ed manuscripts pouring in each day for the three or four daily op-ed spots, we’re forced to be pretty choosy about how to use what’s become increasingly precious “real estate.”

Deputy Editorial Page Editor Sharon Grigsby, who oversees our op-ed pages, explained her thinking this way: “We have denounced this before. And I believe that at some point the ‘too much rebuttal backfires’ argument is pertinent here. The more times we publish a denouncement, the more it keeps the story in circulation. Unless I missed a news story/peg, nothing new has emerged that gives ‘new legs’ to this … at the time that the Friedman piece moved, it was linked to the Israel anniversary, and we had already hit that several times as well. … It’s not like Obama said something NEW that caused these rumors to resurface.”

So while we appreciated the suggestion, we hope readers appreciate our reasoning.

2. Reader Wendy Anderson e-mailed me last week with this message: “I just want to understand why you allow a waste of company time and editorial space to Tod Robberson on this pit bull issue? He is very uneducated on the breed and has no merit to speak on the issue. I have been bitten by many breeds of dogs, but I am not on a hunt to exterminate them and find it offensive that this man is allowed to do so. I guess I will start reading the Fort Worth Star Telegram.”

We’d hate to lose this reader to the FWST, but switching newspapers won’t do much to help solve what has become a huge issue of concern throughout many North Texas neighborhoods – dangerous dogs running wild.

A little context is in order. Tod has written one column, one editorial and posted several blog items reflecting on the difficulties of dealing with the city bureaucracy when it comes to stray or dangerous dogs. He has first-hand knowledge, having been attacked Feb. 21 by a neighbor’s pit bull-mix. He wrote how the dog owner continues to flout the law and went largely unpunished, despite the fact that the dog had five – count ‘em, five! – previous complaints filed against him. Due to extraordinary efforts by Tod and several neighbors, the dog owner eventually was subject to a dangerous-dog ruling that required her to build a containment fence and purchase $100,000 of insurance, but the city has not fully enforced those requirements.

More recently, another member of our department was similarly attacked in her neighborhood and had to go to the emergency room. Other members of our department – and many readers – complain regularly about wild dogs running free in neighborhoods, threatening the safety of anybody who dares to step outside their homes, their owners seemingly immune from any meaningful repercussions for this negligence.

Yes, Tod has strong opinions about this issue. But he backs his opinions with facts. An example from his column: “I've examined the city's proposed changes to the dangerous-dog ordinance, and I'm appalled. At a minimum, the state needs to dump its ‘one free bite’ rule, and Dallas should ascribe an automatic dangerous-dog designation to all pit bulls and Rottweilers. They are responsible for half of serious dog attacks nationwide even though they represent only a small percentage of the dog population.”

And Tod looked beyond the city limits for techniques used in other cities: “Denver has banned pit bulls altogether - and successfully defended the ban in court.”

Readers are free to disagree with Tod’s suggested solutions, but disagreeing doesn’t render his opinions invalid or a waste of space. The goal here is to elevate the visibility of this issue and encourage debate. Only then will solutions develop.

If readers have better ideas for solving this problem, we urge them to speak up. Now. Dallas Mayor Pro-Tem Elba García met with us earlier this week to review a series of proposed changes to the dangerous-dog ordinance she’s pushing. She’s on the right track, but we don’t think her ideas go far enough because the emphasis is more on mandatory spay-neutering, which is a fine idea, than on addressing the apparent inability of city animal control officers to punish owners whose dogs are proven dangers to the community.

Ms. García plans to brief the full council about her proposed changes June 18; the council is scheduled to vote on them June 25. There’s still time to influence these changes if readers engage on this issue.

3. Bill Dixon, a retired U.S. Navy commander in Coppell, writes with several complaints about the newspaper, including three concerns specific to the Editorial pages. He thinks we’ve taken “a bunch of liberal yahoos” and “turned what was once a fine ‘news’ paper into a despicable bunch of parrots for The New York Times.” He also accuses us of “imposing advice upon various suburbs, i.e. Farmers Branch and Carrollton.” And lastly, “You hide behind the sanctity ‘editorial’ as if that is your God-given right. God forbid that anyone really knows who writes your imperial advice.”

Whew, there’s a lot of anger packed into this e-mail. Let me see if I can address the specific concerns.

First, yes, we publish some liberal columnists on our op-ed pages. I don’t know if they qualify as “yahoos” any more than the conservatives we publish qualify as “rednecks” – a pejorative I sometimes encounter from the other side of the political aisle.

Among the liberals we publish are Nicholas Kristof, Eugene Robinson and Trudy Rubin. We also publish some conservatives, including David Brooks, George Will and Linda Chavez. As of April 30 (our most recent monthly tally), we’ve published 189 liberal writers and 185 conservative writers for a total of 374 ideological writers. That’s a difference of about 1 percentage point across the first four months of the year – hardly “a despicable bunch of parrots.”

It’s quite possible that this reader is more fired up about the editorials that we on the newspaper’s Editorial Board write, believing they’re too liberal. Or maybe he’s upset about the news stories that are selected for the front page. It’s a little hard to tell from the e-mail.

I’d welcome a constructive conversation about editorials, if that’s the reader’s point, especially since we’re often accused by others of being “a right-wing rag.” I’m sure Managing Editor George Rodrigue would welcome a constructive conversation about the composition of Page One. (George oversees the news pages, not I.) Our personal e-mail addresses are listed on Page 2A of the newspaper every day if this is a line of discussion you’d like to pursue.

With regard to “imposing advice” on the suburbs. I regret that it seems to this reader that we’re ramming stuff down readers’ throats.

I suspect Mr. Dixon may be referring to the fact that we’ve editorialized against the Farmers Branch immigration ordinance – the one that was found unconstitutional this week by a federal judge. What we intend with regard to such issues is to offer suggestions, provide context, share advice. Sometimes, we can be most constructive by expressing outrage, condemning wrongdoing, sharing sorrow or praising good. All of these are forms of opinion and interpretation, the sort of analysis that lies at the heart of what editorial pages do. We err when we sound high and mighty, out of touch or holier than thou. So watching our tone is always a good idea.

Finally, Mr. Dixon implies that there’s something secretive about who’s writing the editorials. Not at all.

Like most newspapers, our editorials aren’t signed by an individual writer. That’s because the viewpoint expressed in the editorial is the viewpoint of the Editorial Board, and the writer has been charged with crafting the best essay possible to reflect that point of view. Putting an individual name next to the editorial distracts from the fact that the opinion within the essay is that of an institution, as shaped by its Editorial Board.

We list the names, photos and bios of every member of the Editorial Board on our Web site, however, and often blog each day about who’s writing which editorial for the following day’s editions. If you don’t have access to the Internet and want to know who wrote a particular editorial, you can always call the Editorial department and ask. We’ll tell you. We’ll be happy to connect you to that person directly, if you’d like.

4. Reader Jim Pollard of Fairview e-mailed us this week to complain about how we edited his letter to the editor, published Sunday, about horse slaughtering. Wrote Mr. Pollard, in part: “Is it standard practice for the DMN to radically edit letters to the editor? Perhaps you thought the letter too descriptive for the paper. What I described was shown in a documentary and caught on video tape.”

Responded letters coordinator Joanna England, in part: “I selected your letter for publication because of its unique perspective and succinct point, which I think was presented best by your first paragraph. We edit most every letter to fit our page, and because your letter was over our 200-word limit, we did have to cut some of it. Specifically, we cut your detailed description of the killing floor as recorded in the documentary because we could not make certain that the situation occurred exactly as you said before our deadline. In the future, if you would prefer that your letter remain unedited, or if you would like us to confer with you about any edits made prior to publication, please feel free to let us know in the body of your e-mail.”

Wrote Mr. Pollard later that day: “Thanks for responding so quickly. I appreciate your comments.”