Not again! In your editorial concerning the Redskins quarterback controversy {Nov. 17}, you state that the starting quarterback of the future needs "the voice of a Nebraska hog caller." Inevitably, when a porcine (or bovine) example is needed, Nebraska (or occasionally Iowa) fills the bill. As a native Nebraskan, I can assure you that a majority of the people from that state have called neither a hog nor a cow. Some, hard as it is to believe, don't even have livestock in their back yards!

May I suggest some new cliche's for use? "Quiet as a D.C. politician after a snowstorm"; "loud as a Georgetown fan at a basketball game"; "powerful as an NRA lobbyist"; "evasive as a presidential primary candidate"; or even "provincial as a Post editorial writer."

I'm sorry I can't provide more examples, but I have to go out back and put beer in the trough for my herd of Rednecks. (That's all we have outside the Beltway, as you well know.) -- K. Steven Halter On the Side? We were baffled by UPI vice president James R. Hood's comments about Reuters {Free for All, Oct. 31}. He states that the Associated Press provides the North American communications network for Reuters. AP communications are only one of several delivery methods we use. Others include our own terrestrial network, satellite, cable and FM sideband. Delivery via AP is for the convenience of those newspapers wishing to receive Reuters in such a manner.

Hood describes us as "the hugely profitable British financial services company that runs a news service on the side." Reuters Information Services Inc. is a U.S. company, which is the chief operating subsidiary of Reuters Holdings PLC. Nearly half of the public shares of Reuters are owned by American interests. Any success we enjoy has been based on our total commitment to producing the best possible services for all of our clients. Nothing is done "on the side." -- Desmond Maberley The writer is executive editor of Reuters North America. Which Side? The illustration for the Nov. 15 "Outposts" feature did more than expand our intellectual frontiers, as stated in the preface. The illustration, which was supposed to clarify the different functions of the right side and left side of the brain, clearly labeled the left side as "right" and the right side as "left" -- which stretched "expand" past the breaking point.

-- Joy N. Jepson Not the Czar In reprinting the San Francisco Chronicle's cartoon by Meyer, "Soviet Leader Boldly Breaks with Predecessors" {Drawing Board, Nov. 14}, The Post repeated the fabrication that V. I. Lenin's predecessor was Russia's last czar.

For the record, Lenin overthrew Russia's fledgling, Western-style democracy, the Provisional Government, that had ended czarist rule eight months earlier in March 1917. -- Lincoln Landis The Casualties at Antietam George Will, discussing the Battle of Antietam in his Nov. 15 column, makes the mistake of confusing casualties with soldiers killed. Casualties are the total number of soldiers killed, wounded and missing in action. Thus at Antietam there were about 23,000 casualties on both sides, with the Union suffering 2,108 dead and the Confederacy 1,546 dead. Will's cheap comparison of Antietam with the Battle of Borodino (a comparison demeaning to all parties in those two epic battles) is rendered invalid, since at Borodino the Russians had approximately 44,000 killed and wounded.

This would be of small moment except that much of Will's column is devoted to the Soviets' inability to get facts and figures straight. It would be well then for Will to be a bit more stringent in his own handling of evidence before proceeding with his fulminations. One does not have to have too much imagination to conceive what Will's reaction would be to a Soviet writer who quadrupled the number of soldiers killed at, say, Stalingrad.

One final and more important point: the battlefield at Antietam is one of the most haunting monuments in American history. It is, as Will rightly points out, a shrine. All the more reason, then, that it not be dragged in -- inaccurately at that -- to make a debater's point in a conservative polemic.

-- David C. Ward 'Unqualified Persecution' I was appalled to see reporter John Mintz write that Baltic exiles will protest during the upcoming visit of Mikhail Gorbachev because of "what they see as" continuing Soviet persecution of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. In his article Nov. 15, Mintz described the persecution of the Jewish people under the czarist and Soviet governments without any such qualification. Why was one needed to refer to the suffering of the Balts?

During the 1940s, the Soviets deported half a million Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians to Arctic slave camps, 15,000 of them in one night. Floods of Russian and other Slavic immigrants have reduced native Latvians to 53 percent of the population in their own country, and Russian Soviet officials are systematically replacing the Latvian language with Russian in schools, government and the work place.

Even worse than the Russification policies are the brutal measures meted out to Baltic nationalists. The presence of Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians is so prevalent in the Soviet gulag that the term "Balt" has become a slang term for all political prisoners.

The Post had better do some homework before it writes about Balts again. If their experience under the Soviets doesn't count as unqualified persecution, I don't know what does. -- Louise McManus