Dear editor,

I read the objections in the article concerning the city of Ringgold adding wi-fi to the city park. I would have assumed the objections would have been valid ones, such as the role of government, excess spending, lack of demand and such (not that I am stating such objections personally).

However, the two printed objections had to be the most lame reasons I have read in a long time. It is almost as if the newspaper went looking for the craziest objections, (which I am not claiming was done).

Do not put wi-fi in the park because of sexual predators? Since when is public wi-fi a predator magnet? The mall has wi-fi, do they have an onslaught of sexual predators taking children on a daily basis? Heck, my daughter’s gymnastics [class] has public wi-fi, and to my knowledge, not a single child was kidnapped or raped there last month. I think such an “objection” has seriously gone to the “nth” degree beyond reason. I would ask that parent if she also puts a helmet on her child whilst driving around Ringgold, for that is the level of absurdness as equating public wi-fi to sexual predators.

To the other objection of worrying that parents will not pay attention to their children: huh?

So, if an irresponsible parent chooses to watch Jersey Shore on her iPhone with the wi-fi instead of watching her fat kid get stuck in the slide, we should insist no wi-fi be added? Again, it’s an absurd jump of logic.

Jeremy Jones, Ringgold