A few readers were perturbed to receive with their Times recently the latest edition of Luxx, our glossy magazine devoted to “the best of everything”. They felt that with headlines reporting economic doom and gloom, rising fuel and energy prices in the West, and the huge increase in food prices threatening the world’s poorest, this was not the ideal time to advertise “ridiculously over-priced ‘must-have’ goods”, as one reader put it.

Luxx is dedicated to people who enjoy luxury in many forms; we do not expect it to appeal to everyone, and we respect the views of those who consign it unopened to the recycling bin.

We aim to offer a wide choice of reading matter in The Times, and we leave readers to make their own decisions about which sections they want to read. We have reported in depth the effects of the credit crunch, and perhaps this isn’t actually such a bad time to offer a few purely escapist “if I won the lottery” fantasies.

— Robert Burt e-mails from Leicestershire: “The media have, uncharacteristically, concurred in referring to Myanmar as Burma; yet my encyclopedia and atlas, the authority of which would not usually be questioned, refer to Myanmar. Why?”

We continue to use Burma mainly for the same reason that we continue to use Bombay, not Mumbai: because most of our readers are more familiar with those names. French media refer to Angleterre, rather than England, for the same reason. With Myanmar there is also, of course, a political element; the military authorities promoted the local name Myanmar in 1989, but it was not approved by any sitting legislature. We do, of course, keep these things under review, and our house style may alter; but not yet.

— I don’t get many letters about radio listings, so when one arrived some months ago from Jenny Drewe, of London, I replied to her, passed it on to The Knowledge, and filed it away.

When Michael Dodson Coleman wrote this week from Lancashire making exactly the same point, I dug it out again; after all, to receive one complaint about Radio 3 listings may be regarded as an oddity, but to receive two looks like a trend.

Their complaint is that we routinely waste the limited space available by carefully naming the presenter, or that it is the second concert in a Bach series, but omit the much more useful names of the soloists or performers. Duly noted, Madam and Sir, and passed on to the TV and radio editor, who promises to give the matter his attention.

— Assorted bloomers this week. We got the year of Roger Bannister’s sub-four-minute mile wrong in times 2 on Tuesday — it was 1954, not 1958.

Debby Horsman wonders if our style guru Lucia van der Post could do anything about the dingy sailors of Abersoch (Travel, May 3), and John Cullen of York thinks it would be better to defuse marital power struggles than diffuse them (Body&Soul, May 3).

We relocated Cuckmere Haven from East to West Sussex in a picture caption, and we seem to think that there is such a word as predominately, having used it three times in as many weeks, says Oliver Dickinson.

— Ronal Gough e-mailed: “Your Money supplement refers to ‘months, if not years, of prevarication’ by the FSA. I have noticed a number of journalists seem to equate prevarication with procrastination. I’m sure it is incorrect and find it irritating.”

Fowler agrees with you that the former means “to speak or act evasively or misleadingly; to quibble, to equivocate. It does not mean ‘to delay’.” However, the New Oxford dictionary acknowledges that the meanings are closely related — if someone prevaricates, they also often procrastinate.

— I’m allowing us two small pats on the back this week. P. J. Knowles wrote from Gloucester: “I feel congratulations are in order for your ‘Eat out for £10’ promotion. My wife and I have taken advantage of the offer on a number of occasions in different parts of the country, have never had less than an excellent meal and have always been treated to good service.”

Barry Robinson, of Dorset, says that after reading Another Paper for 50 years he has tried The Times, and is planning to stay: “Now that you are in compact form and printed on your new presses I can only say what a fantastic product.” A warm welcome, and here’s to the next 50.

E-mail feedback@thetimes.co.uk ; fax us on 020-7782 5046; or write to Feedback, The Times, 1 Pennington Street, London E98 1TA