I applaud The Crimson for reporting no slow delivery to boxes at the Harvard Yard Mail Center ("First-Years Criticize Slow Mail Delivery," Feb. 25, 1994). I found it strange, however, that Crimson reports spent only a few hours investigating the article, and, therefore, gave the people who run the mail center very little time to respond.

I spent more than I got a playing phone tag before I got a response (and a prompt one) from a Harvard administrator about the very same issue.

The Crimson, which attempted to reach people in just a few hours at the end of the day, was not able to get such a response.

In contrast, before writing this letter, I spent more than a semester repeatedly telephoning The Crimson to ask why my two newspaper subscriptions very frequently do not arrive.

Yet, unlike the mail which will eventually get to the box, even a call for redelivery will often not got The Crimson to my door.

After leaving five messages specifically asking for a response, I did finally reach the circulation director a few weeks ago. He issued me a partial refund and an assurance that it would not happen again--an assurance that has since fallen through.

After two weeks of solid delivery, I have missed two of the last five days, including the issue in which The Crimson lambasted the HYMC.

I think that there is fair criticism to be made of the post office, the mail center, and The Crimson, none of which deliver their goods 100 percent of the time.

However, I have found that by far the most guilty of those three has been The Crimson itself, and I question its authority to judge the other two. Joe Levy '97