I have a question I feel certain must be shared by others who write letters to the editor and those who enjoy them: Just exactly what are the criteria used to determine which letters are published?

Thomas M. Edwards

San Francisco

Actually, Thomas M. Edwards, you should be answering this question. Edwards is one of the most prolific and splendid letters-to-the-editor writers in the San Francisco Bay Area. The self-described 68-year-old gay-atheist-conservative-Republican regularly brings a distinctive voice to our editorial page in his succinct, searing style ... even if he did recently denounce The Chronicle as a "card-carrying member of the ultra-liberal media" after we supported the return of 6-year-old Elian Gonzalez to his father in Cuba.

Yet even Edwards' submissions run into the cold reality of available space. We receive more than 100 letters a day, but typically have room for eight to 12, even after tightening them by editing out rambling sentences or redundant points. So what makes the cut?

Evaluation of letters is inherently subjective. Our goal on the editorial page is to present a wide range of lively, thoughtful, provocative commentary in our Letters to the Editor section. We want the letters package to present contrasting views, while also giving a sense of the public sentiment on an issue. During the impeachment of President Clinton, for example, we drew complaints about the number of letters that criticized House and Senate Republicans. But our mailbag was heavily weighted against impeachment. Personally, I think the strongest letters are often among the shortest, which is why three years ago we added the frank phrase to our how-to-reach-us box, "Shorter letters have a better chance of publication." This also advances our goal of giving more readers a chance to get their views into print. Haiku, of course, is optional ... but very welcome and fully considered for publication in Letters to the Editor.

I thought it might be helpful to provide you with a glimpse at our guidelines for letter selection, as spelled out in a memo circulated to our editorial page staff last year.

One of our objectives is to maintain civility and raise the level of discourse in public debate. As our memo puts it, our copy editors "screen out letters that are too personal in tone or engage in gratuitous name calling." Save the screaming for talk radio. Spare the crassness, too. "Letter writers sometimes want to see what they can get away with on language," the memo notes. Our standard on profanity in letters: "If we can't do it, they can't do it."

Sometimes letters get passed over because they resemble a ransom note with a smattering of boldface words and capitalized words to emphasize their VERY IMPORTANT POINTS. Let the power of your prose and your arguments carry the day, not the caps lock on your keyboard. This goes for punctuation too!!!!!

The copy editors who sift through the letters make an effort to include not only a diversity of views, but a geographic representation of our readership.

And, yes, we do make a conscious effort to keep the two dozen or so very regular writers from dominating the page. Edwards has had just one of his letters published this year, though every time he does make it into print, we get a few letters objecting to what they regard as special treatment. Oh well, as Edwards once said (Letters, March 25, 1999) of the Republican congressmen running scared after the Clinton impeachment: "No good deed goes unpunished."

Bob Koch of Novato defended Edwards against attacks by fellow letter writers, describing Edwards in one punchy paragraph (Letters, Dec. 2, 1999) as "thoughtful, stimulating and refreshingly free of the pitiful victim whining so popular with San Franciscans."

Koch obviously knows a good letter when he sees one. And he showed he could write one, too.

-John Diaz