Do you find it creepy that a person of unknown authority would hang around a high school to conduct "interviews" and then write a howling diatribe to the editor of the local paper? Who are the "we (who) have watched developments at Schreiber" referred to in the letter to the editor of Jan. 22? Why is the writer eager to levy poison-pen slanders upon unsuspecting teachers? What is the editor thinking who prints such denigrations without investigation or corroboration?

Certainly, the letter writer looks foolish when failing to cite any of the "solid facts" he says support a finding of "outlandish" behavior by Schreiber teachers.

Come out of the woodwork there, Mr. Letter Writer. Beyond revealing your prejudices against "tattoos" and "nose rings" have you brought to light any worthwhile detail about the professionalism of Schreiber teachers? Is it your place to do so, assuming you could? The tenor and vagaries of your letter argue that you don't have a clue. Wouldn't it be more effective to lay your charges before the superintendent where they could be dealt with professionally? A letter to the editor is not the fair or legal forum for accusations against contractual employees.

The trash talk of the letter would be comical if the dangerous ignorance of it was not so disturbing. There is a time, a place, a method - and an authority - for evaluating the performance of Port Washington's teachers. No unprofessional behavior has gone unaddressed by the schools in the past, nor has any become unaddressable in the present. Only a person truly outside the educational process in Port Washington could have produced the sloppy, sappy, ineffectual pot shots seen in the letter of Jan. 22.

Martin Hamburger