Mike Fowle, of Felixstowe, is worried about our leading articles: “I was surprised to read that Philip Collins (Opinion, December 5) is a leader writer for The Times and used to be Tony Blair's chief speechwriter. Is it usual for someone with such pronounced political sympathies to be a leader writer? This isn't a problem with columnists because they are named, but the leading articles are the voice of The Times. Certainly I shall treat them as having little authority from now on.”

No need to do that, Mr Fowle. The sentiments expressed in a leading article are not those of the leader writer but of the Editor of The Times, which he discusses at his daily conference with his leader writers.

I think we can presume that all our leader writers have pretty pronounced political sympathies in their personal lives, but we take care to balance the team so that the Editor has the benefit of a vigorous debate on any issue (our chief leader writer is a former speechwriter for William Hague and John Major). The leader writers' job is to put the Editor's thoughts into words for the next day's paper, carefully, elegantly, concisely - and very faithfully, if they enjoy working here.

Energetic argument

I knew this would happen if I dipped a toe into the murky waters of power and energy (Feedback, last week).

Steuart Campbell, DipArch (Birm), BA(Open), wishes to dive in: “The octogenarian engineer Mike Rathbone's clarification of energy and power only adds to confusion. Please allow a septuagenarian science writer to clarify.

“Power is the rate of ‘doing work' (old-fashioned terminology), although these days we describe it as the rate of energy flow. But energy is not ‘the rate at which power is consumed' (energy is never consumed - it can't be destroyed). Energy is the capacity to produce power (or ‘work'). Power involves time; energy does not. Energy is stored; power is produced when that store is released. A watt is a unit of power (actually a joule/ second); a watt-hour is a unit of stored energy (the time involved cancels the time in the watt, so eliminating time in this unit). The usual unit of energy is the joule. Is that clear?” Hmm.

Maria Warren adds: “I hate to contradict an octogenarian engineer, but power is the rate at which energy is consumed. Gobbledegook no doubt to non-scientists, but perfectly logical to some. This is even taught in the much-maligned science GCSE.”

I'm tempted to say that this correspondence is now closed, but I fear it may not be - next?

Running story

Last week too I mentioned a travel article in which the writer said he used a towpath “to courier food supplies from the shops to his barge”. W. Golding wrote from Bath to take exception to that: “Since when was ‘courier' a verb? ‘To run' is the nearest correct English derivative. Please avoid nasty (and mostly American) verbalisations.”

As readers who have been with Feedback from the beginning will know, I find myself increasingly inclined to defend many so-called Americanisms, admiring their invariable concision and economy. My absolute favourite phrase is “mission creep”; in its absence, see how many words you have to use to achieve the same meaning.

In the same vein, Simon Drury begs us to veto what he calls “the American use of ‘gotten' to mean ‘has become' - I've noticed many examples recently”. The problem with the widespread assumption that “gotten” is a ghastly Americanism is that it isn't. It is the Late Middle English (1350-1469) past participle of “get”, even if it is now largely confined, in thoroughly decent English English, to the term “ill-gotten gains”.

Omer nods

John Marshall, a Staffordshire pastor (and therefore at something of an advantage here), writes: “Once again the Polygon solution (December 4) does not allow the word ‘omer' - a weight mentioned regularly in the Bible. Surely everyone knows there are ten omers to an ephah.”

Absolutely, but the Polygon editor reminds us that the rules specify the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as the official reference, and by some oversight it omits “omer”.

It does not omit “oligarch”, however, which prompts Derek Barnett to write from Uxbridge: “Why does The Times constantly refer to the Russian Oleg Deripaska as an oligarch? I have always understood that this word means a member of any government by a small number of people. And nobody has ever suggested that this gent is a politician.”

That is indeed the main definition; however, my Collins also allows “a small clique of private citizens who exert a strong influence on government”, and it is in this sense, in the context of modern Russia in particular, that oligarch is used by the media to describe certain super-rich Russian businessmen.

Holiday schedule

In something of a triumph of hope over experience, I am trying to deflect the usual seasonal complaints that we publish smaller issues over Christmas by forewarning you about some of the holiday changes.

Newspapers are always thinner at holiday periods because more readers are away and so advertising levels drop (and yes, I know that this year the economic downturn will force many holidaymakers to stay at home, but advertising budgets are feeling the pinch more than usual too. And no, we don't charge less for the thinner issues, but then we don't charge more for the fatter ones in spring and autumn either).

At the time of writing (although things could change) the plans are these: Travel and Body&Soul will appear as usual on December 27, but there will be no Money or Books on that Saturday, and the next Bricks & Mortar property section will appear on January 9.

By way of compensation there is a special puzzles supplement on December 27 (stupid slip of the week: some complete idiot wrote last Saturday that the puzzles special was on January 27. Oh, hang on, it was me. Sorry). And watch out on Boxing Day for a new puzzle in times2, Tredoku, that could become a regular if enough of you like it.

May I wish all of you a very, very happy Christmas.

Times Recommends

• Bank charges hit us for being human
• Sorry, Father, thou still shalt not steal
• The shed where Santa’s failures go to die