I understand that Vice President Cheney's unfortunate but nonetheless vulgar language is newsworthy [news story, June 25]. But was it necessary to print the curse word in full?

Granted, your readers are familiar with the word. But your paper bills itself as a "family newspaper." Within that definition, surely Dana Milbank and Helen Dewar could have conveyed Cheney's intent the way they referred to the offending word later in the article -- as the F-word?

If this downward trend of editorial standards continues, will it be necessary to continue featuring the Friday "Family Filmgoer" guide, which warns parents about film profanity?

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

-- Barbara Friedmann

Annapolis

*

In spite of raunchy music lyrics, suggestive videos and shock jocks, I have been able to convince my kids that foul language is unacceptable, unconvincing and unimpressive.

Imagine my chagrin to be greeted at breakfast yesterday by my son gleefully arguing that if the vice president of the United States can use the F-word when addressing a senator, what's wrong with him using obscene language around the house? I am sure many other parents are going to be having similar arguments with their teens and tweens. In the spirit of parental solidarity, let me offer one counter-argument that appears to have worked with my son. It's a variation on an old theme. " I don't care what Dick Cheney says in the House or the Senate. If he went to war on false pretenses, would you go along too?"

-- Peter Vos

Rockville