EDITOR – Your editorial a few weeks ago made reference to the older generation much to the irritation of some of the pre-1994 oxygen consumers.
Myself being a proud member of this silver-haired daddies and mommies tribe, I initially paid no attention to the adjective you used to describe three score and ten society. Then a voice from the wilderness bellowed some unwelcome objections in your newspaper columns, which triggered my synapses into considering the issue.
Carbon dating did not offend the millions of fossils subjected to this scientific method used for determining age of our ancestors – so why should we care what you call us when we have been around for only a fraction of the time Mrs Pless has, albeit it in spirit and bone?
Some scientists find themselves differing on the age of certain fossils and this discrepancy could be thousands of years. This made me realise that if learned men in laboratories are permitted errors, we should not pass judgement when you, according to your own sources of reference, determine who is old and who not.
In defence of the complainant I would admit age is relevant to many other factors than the number of years. I have come across older generations even in the 40 to 50-year age bracket
I realise this makes it very difficult to group these people. This becomes even more complicated when attending the annual eThekwini Municipality Christmas lunch, which so many people mistake as the lunch of a political party. At this event we encounter older generations far below retirement age. But let each decide their own seniority according to their ability to accept change and the inability to prevent change.
Dear editor, just as I do not condemn you for thinking I am young, in the same manner you are absolved for judging others a little older.
In the light of a recent letter to you calling on the International Criminal Court hearings on another issue, I regarded it as prudent to clear you of any misdemeanour before you and I jet off to the Hague.
