In your editorial today (May 8) talking about the never-ending primary, you stated "the editorial board is AGNOSTIC (caps are mine) as to who wins the Democratic nomination." That use of the word agnostic stopped me in my tracks. My dictionary refers to Thomas Huxley as coining the word in 1870 and all its meanings refer to the inability of the human mind to know God or to know anything the mind can't experience through the senses. Do you use a dictionary with more definitions?

The word disinterested would seem to fit your meaning better. Like judges, you are supposed to be disinterested, not partisan or prejudiced toward any one side.

I look forward to your next disinterested statement.

Larry DeBlois

Augusta