I don't get it. Because it's an "alternative" paper, Albert Williams tells us the Reader doesn't have to observe the same ethical guidelines as other papers [Letters, May 12]. But to support his praise of colleague Adam Langer's play, he cites a concurring opinion by Richard Christiansen, Chicago's most established critic. And in Culture Club, Lewis Lazare describes how Christiansen and Williams concurred again in trashing Moon Under Miami [May 12]. Several Reader critics also review theatre for the standard press. Same sensibility, same POV, same opinions. So where's the alternative?