Last month we published a letter that drew considerable attention. It was strong, controversial, and the author's name was withheld upon request. Some found it offensive.

Personally, I don't favor anonymity – particularly when it becomes a shield for those likely to spew venom and inaccuracies to further a personal agenda. Most specifically when anonymity is the cover for personal attacks that either contain misinformation, or conveniently omit information in order to infer wrongdoing. The targeted individual should be well entitled to not only a defense, but a call to responsibility for the "attacker" to stand behind his allegations.

Contrarians always speak the loudest; those who take the time and the energy to take a stand are usually those battling a cause; strife breeds more passion, thus inspiring an insurgence that is potent and palpable. Historically, the greatest calls to action, demonstrations and petitions have been sparked by a deep sense of protest.

I would like to see those who support issues be as vocal and dedicated. Sadly, they often relegate themselves to the background, through fear, inactivity, or a false sense of security in a seemingly predictable outcome.

Should they emulate the opposition, it might fuel balance, understanding and often a resolution which encompasses opposing views.

Last month's letter to the editor declared how most immigrants (illegal or not) "extend their bad customs, intolerance, lack of culture and class" into the U.S., often break the law and refuse to learn English.

Albeit insulting to many due to its caustic content, it was not a personal attack, nor was it meant to disparage a specific individual. It was simply one person's opinion, which we can agree or disagree with, and strong enough for the writer to cautiously remain in the shadows.

And there is a difference. "Name withheld" is a real person with a name, an email address, and a real home, as verified by us in property tax records. He took the time to be heard, and due to the controversial nature of his comments, requested that his name be withheld. It was not anonymous.

We are a forum of public opinion – not just those we agree with, but all. If we tout our diversity in Miami-Dade as one of our greatest assets and strengths, then the diversity of our voices should thrive as well.

I strongly disagree with the opinions expressed in that letter, but I am pleased to live in a country that gives all the right of free expression – no matter what.

Some of the greatest lessons I have learned have come from those I differed with. If I listen attentively, and find some commonality – it is a starting point for debate and further learning – for the pro as well as the con.

Understanding is the first step towards reconciliation. Opting for the acceptance of mind-opening ideas, instead of a knee-jerk reaction of prejudice and rejection, will more often than not lead to a positive place. Whether we agree, disagree, or agree to disagree.

Hopefully, this negative letter made us all think about ourselves, and how we feel about our neighbors: from New York, Brazil, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Bahamas and even Pittsburgh. The first Miamians came from somewhere else, and the last ones as well. And unless we want to live in somewhat solitary confinement, we all just have to get along.

For it still takes two to tango, and the music is playing – that sexy, passionate music.

From Argentina, right?