I left a phone message for Herald writer Peter Gelzinis last week on how upset I was about his column concerning Steve Belichick. The piece suggested son should have followed dad's superior moral/ethical example re., matters surrounding "cameragate," and that dad likely would have disapproved of BB's behavior before and after getting caught. He called me back today and we talked for a few minutes about his reasoning behind what he wrote. Gelzinis seems like a reasonable enough guy, up to a point, but appeared more interested in defending the column and talking over me vs. hearing what I had to say. He said he felt he was very respectful to Steve B. in what he wrote, but his message was that BB didn't reflect sufficiently upon his father's legacy of honor and integrity, etc., and if he had, the scandal likely wouldn't have ocurred. Or, at least BB would've 'fessed up more contritely. I told him I thought his invoking the man's dead father was in very poor taste -- a low reach at a time of professional/personal crisis that hit below the belt. He disagreed using the ol' "but he IS a public figure" defense. True enough, but that doesn't absolve a writer from crossing the bounds of respect (for BB as a human being) and good taste ... He did say he received a lot of e-mail/calls from irate Pats fans over the piece. He admitted to a factual error of which I told him in writing Steve B. died last fall (it actually was two years ago), and also admitted he never knew or met Steve B. The bottom line was that Gelzinis felt there was nothing distasteful about the column as he took pains to revere Steve B. I told him I thought it was a callous move to invoke the name and memory of a man's dead father while that person is embroiled in professional/personal crisis. We ended the conversation essentially agreeing to disagree.