I see The Post is intent on perpetuating that twaddle about cabdrivers who can't speak English {editorial, Sept. 7}. There are no cabdrivers who are blind, there are no cabdrivers who are quadruple amputees and, because he has to answer 25 questions in English to get a license, there is no licensed cabdriver who does not have a working knowledge of English. Which is not to say that all cabdrivers are willing to talk to you.

I hereby offer a $100 reward for the face number of any cabdriver who cannot speak English and ask The Post to give this canard a rest until it claims the money.

Robert McArthur

Abortion: The Choice of Words

At least the headline and cover on "The Politics of Abortion" were unbiased {Health, Sept. 8}. I thought I might finally read an objective piece on this subject in The Post.

But that part of the article subtitled "Rhetoric Wars" is a perfect example of the tactics employed by your paper. The paragraph speaks of anti-abortionists who "commonly call themselves pro-life" and who "cloak their movement in terms such as 'Right-to-Life' and 'legalized murder,' " while "supporters of legalized abortion . . . call themselves 'pro-choice' and frame the issue in terms of 'reproductive freedom' and a woman's 'right to privacy' " (emphasis mine).

I received a similar letter recently from the National Abortion Rights Action League under the signature of Joanne Woodward. The letter spoke of Judge Bork as "Mr. Reagan's anti-choice nominee." No mention is made of their "pro-abortion" position. If the other side of pro-choice is anti-choice, the other side of anti-abortion is pro-abortion.

The statistics cited for the number of abortions reportedly performed (and your article states they are underreported) are horrifying! I submit that the supporters of legalized abortion are the ones hiding behind emotional terms such as "personal freedom" and "individual rights" -- terms especially dear to the American people.

As a classroom teacher, I am well aware of the confusion in the minds of children (and probably of many adults) over the ideas represented by the term "legal." Too many of our children are growing up with the idea that if it is legal, it is good and moral. The choice of words used to describe this issue is no accident.

Maryann S. Cushing 'One of the Greatest Thinkers'

Love him or hate him, Karl Marx remains one of the greatest thinkers of the past 150 years. R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. {op-ed, Sept. 5}, love him or hate him, is one of the most narrow-minded thinkers of this or any time. To have the latter critique the former is similar to inviting a Little League ball boy to criticize the skills of Ty Cobb or Wee Willie Keeler and then publishing his mouthings.

Marx would not find it strange, as Tyrrell believes, that the Dow Jones sits around 2500. He would, however, point out that simultaneous to this happening, our country enjoys the largest trade deficit in the history of the world. And then he would try to explain what he thought this contradiction signified.

It is not vaguely possible to understand the world today without some comprehension of Marx's ideas. What is transpiring is too damn complicated to understand in terms of black and white, right and wrong. It must be seen in terms of identifying and analyzing contradictions.

The fact that Marx considered human life and the human spirit more noble and important than the mindless and unrelenting acquisition of unnecessary property is a separate matter, suitable for discussion at some other time -- probably not with Tyrrell, however, who might start frothing at the very notion.

David Goldberger And the Games Teams Play?

In your editorial about John McEnroe's behavior on the tennis court {"Parable of the Brat," Sept. 9}, the last sentence read: "Games send messages in the kinds of behavior they tolerate." May we have your balanced views on the behavior tolerated by hockey, baseball, basketball, football? Apparently teams can get away with anything -- receiving sympathy, laughs and applause -- but a single person is held to a different standard. And this says nothing about the relative size and importance of the penalties invoked.

Isabella Montgomery Not Bemused

The Post's fetish for misusing "bemused" is matched only by its stubbornness in ignoring letters aimed at treating this affliction.

"Bemused" does not mean condescendingly amused, as if by something quaint or trifling, unworthy of fuller reaction, as in Henry Allen's Sept. 7 Style piece on William Merritt Chase: "Like Sargent and 19th-century salon painters who were popular with the rich, Chase has long been the subject of bemused dismissals by the teachers of art."

"Bemused" means 1) lost in thought, engrossed, troubled; or 2) bewildered or confused, as if by drink. Are your copy editors too bemused to get it right?

Paul Riddle Bottled Water (Cont'd.)

I am writing to correct my letter regarding the quality of bottled water {Free for All, Sept. 5}. In the last few lines, I mistakenly wrote that bottled water costs on average "six times" more per gallon than tap water. In fact, bottled water costs on average over 600 times more per gallon than tap water.

The average price of 1,000 gallons of tap water in the United States is $1.28, according to the American Water Works Association. This means that the average price of one gallon of tap water is $0.00128. In comparison, the average price of one gallon of domestic bottled water is 80 cents, according to the International Bottled Water Association. Therefore, a gallon of domestic bottled water costs on average 625 times more than a gallon of tap water, a premium price to pay for a product that is often less than premium quality.

Duff Conacher