"For us, not trusting anyone over 30 was tantamount to securing the space for our own say. Young people today are far more likely to challenge the “messenger” rather than the “the message” in the way we did."

That's becuase the message became corrupted. Read any paper today there is very little juno's writing in them most are opinion pieces.

I feel the substance of the article could have been stated in far fewer words. I kept losing track. However, I feel the people described in the article are not the under 25's but are the 25-30-40 somethings. The very people who have had the best of everything in education, monetary gain, technology etc, who feel the world owes them because of their contribution to the economy. I do not know many people between the ages of 20 and 25 but I do know many under 20's. The majority are kind, conpassionate, considerate, polite and not as naive as we who believed everything we were told!
They have the right to challenge the messenger as it is often the baby boomers and those who followed us who corrupted the message. They have been bombarded with explicit sex then told to abstain. They have been shown the inhumanity of leaders of countries who torture and murder but still retain hope. They are constantly being bombarded with the remarks of rednecks who 'contribute' to the shock-jock mentality via the radio waves. They are continually being misinformed and lied to by our so-called leaders, yet want to believe. As long as there are people like the upcoming generation who question so-called authority figures there is hope for us all. And if journalists started to actually make 'journals' as in observing and recording daily activities, instead of printing their own opinions or cutting and pasting bits from other people's writings, people like me and the under 20's might start to believe something the 'media' states! Most of the under 20's get their information from sources well away from the mainstream media.

The editors at the Mercury must be pretty indulgent if they're willing to wade through this kind of tripe stew in search of a point.But if its true that the coming generation won't deliver up many social workers, we can at least be relieved that something's going right.

Jane (our own little Julie Burchill wannabe)

Did they pay you by the word here?

If you feel you must impart your opinions to those beyond your own loyal circle, please accept some advice:

(1) Have something new and interesting to say. You mean there really is a generation gap?!? Whoa, stop the presses!! Folks have been arguing this since Socrates' time. (Socrates was not, as far as I'm aware, a drivel-spouting smart-arse tranvestite, so perhaps he flies under your radar.) Even the whole Boomers v. GenX/Y/whatever issue has been done to death. Ho-hum.

(2) Don't insult our intelligence with vague quotes like the one from "a parent" (which parent? of whom? Why should we care what this person has to say?) and sweeping generalisations.

(3) Tart up your writing style, which veers from flabby to inaccurate to turgid to downright incomprehensible. (Examples provided on request.)

(4) Find someone brave enough to act as your sub-editor. Grammatical errors, sentence fragments, irrelevant inclusions and general verbal diarrhoea are not a good look for someone who asks to be taken seriously.

(5) Invest in a decent dictionary and use it. "Spleenic"?? Surely you meant "splenetic".

If you insist on writing for the public, do yourself (and the rest of us) a favour and take a writing course. I'm sure there's a TAFE college in your area that can help you.

Good luck.