Readers are talking a lot about a man who talks for a living: Vin Scully. Times data editor Doug Smith's Op-Ed article Tuesday musing on "the voice of L.A." closed with a question: "As far as I'm concerned, the voice of L.A. should be heard every day in some public place. So tell me, where would you want to hear Vin Scully?" 

More than 60 suggestions were sent to letters@latimes.com and to Smith directly. Perhaps as a reflection of mobile technology's imbededness in our lives, many of the suggestions relate to cellphones. Others said the comforting familiarity of Scully's speech would soften phrases normally used to deliver bad news (think a police car's loudspeaker telling you to pull over). Smith offered his own idea: "having Scully record that voice at LAX that tells you the white zone is only for unloading."

Here are many of the reader suggestions we received, organized loosely into several categories. Below those is a poll asking readers to pick the best idea from a list of five...

If the hand-wringing over revelations that the IRS gave additional scrutiny to "tea party" groups and other conservative organizations applying for tax-exempt status is as widespread as the coverage makes it seem, that anger hasn't spread to a place where outrage normally lives: The Times' mailbag.

More than a dozen readers -- an unusually low count for such a made-for-indignation topic -- have sent their thoughts on the IRS scandal to letters@latimes.com. Most of the reaction can be described as a collective shrug; some declare that no political groups (liberal ones included) deserve any favorable tax treatment by the IRS. The two letters that do express outrage direct it more broadly at the IRS as an institution. 

Here is a selection of those letters.

Gary Davis of Los Angeles says we're focused on the wrong scandal:

"The investigation into possible IRS excesses in enforcing the 'no political advocacy' rules for nonprofit groups misses the point. 

"If 'tea party' or 'Occupy' groups...

It wasn't surprising that Rafael Medoff's April 7 Op-Ed article about President Franklin D. Roosevelt's private comments on Jews facing persecution in Europe drew spirited responses (though I do admit that I was a little rattled that most of the letters defended Roosevelt). We published several letters Friday -- one from an American Jew who favorably compared the 32nd president's record on genocide to his successors. In response to that letter, in Saturday's Postscript, Medoff listed several instances in which the Roosevelt administration neglected to do anything meaningful to interrupt the Holocaust -- and in ways that would not have undermined the war effort against Hitler.

Just as spirited as the reaction to Medoff's original Op-Ed was the reader response to his follow-up. Nearly a dozen readers sent letters on the topic after Medoff responded to the initial batch. This time, however, readers were less deferential to Roosevelt.

Here is a selection of those letters.

Arnie Keren of...

As I've noted before, in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting in  December, most Times readers who write letters on gun control favor strong action by Congress. But the coincidence this week of a mass knife attack in Texas and a compromise in the Senate on expanded background checks for firearms buyers has emboldened pro-gun rights readers.

Their point: Passing a law that in any way restricts the sale of guns to Americans (via background checks, waiting periods or any other "infringement") won't stop those dead-set on killing people from reaching for whatever weapon they can find. In other words, the Texas college student accused of wounding 14 people (two of them critically) with a knife would have been able to go on a rampage even with an improved background check system for guns in place.

So far Wednesday, nearly a dozen readers have written letters making this point. Apple Valley resident Elliot Fried is one of them:

"Now that 14 people have been stabbed in...

Reader views on same-sex marriage have evolved along with broader public opinion. Over the years, the mix of opinions sent to letters@latimes.com has tilted more heavily in favor of granting gay couples the right to wed. Where there's some gray between the black-and-white arguments for or against Proposition 8 -- California's 2008 ballot initiative banning gay marriage -- is in how society should go about establishing equal marriage rights. Some readers who oppose Proposition 8 have questioned whether overturning it through the courts and not the ballot box is the best course of action.

That years-long debate among our readers intensified Tuesday, with the U.S. Supreme Court hearing oral arguments in the case that could overturn Proposition 8, Hollingsworth vs. Perry. This week, dozens of readers have sent us their arguments for or against (and somewhere in between) same-sex marriage. Here is a selection of the letters we received Tuesday morning.

Santa Clarita resident Arthur G....

To say that that the preponderance of letters we receive on assault weapons call for their ban wouldn't be an exaggeration. So when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced Tuesday that the ban proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein wouldn't be brought to the floor for a vote, readers fumed.

In the past, I've noted that readers angry about an issue tend to write more quickly and in greater numbers than those who aren't. Consequently, the mix of opinions sent to letters@latimes.com may tilt decisively in one direction and not necessarily reflect broader public opinion. But on assault weapons, our readers' opinions roughly align with the public's, according to polls. In January, a Gallup survey found that 60% of Americans favor a federal ban similar to or stronger than the one on the books between 1994 and 2004.

Combine broad public consensus with an issue primed to stir readers' passions, and it's no surprise that almost all of the letters sent to us so far take aim at those in the Senate...

The L.A. Marathon, which was held Sunday, has in the past brought me both joy and anger: joy, as a first-time race finisher in 2011, when a brutal late-winter storm that dumped buckets of rain and buffeted runners made meeting my goal time feel especially satisfying; and angst, as a driver caught in unbearable-even-for-L.A. traffic because of the street closures that allow more than 20,000 runners to jog safely through the city.

Both experiences are hard to relate to anyone who hasn't gone through them. There's no way to capture the catharsis of crossing a finish line after months of life-consuming training, enduring the crippling pain and exhaustion that make the final six miles of a marathon more difficult than the first 20, and being lifted up and encouraged by thousands of complete strangers as if you were batting cleanup at Dodger Stadium.

Had I written a letter to The Times while still on a runner's high after finishing, it would have been similar to what Studio City resident Tom...

Among The Times' letter writers, perhaps no other issue inspires more pessimism than the drama over the downtown L.A. stadium deal. That's saying something.

But given the cast of characters (the NFL, which has burned L.A. more than once; entertainment giant AEG, the mega-developer slated to build the downtown football stadium with support from the city; and City Hall, whose support of this project hasn't exactly won over the public), this isn't surprising. From the moment the deal was announced in 2011, the reader reaction sent to letters@latimes.com has been overwhelmingly negative.

And with the latest development in the story -- AEG's sale that never was -- the pessimism has continued. Arcadia resident Lewis Redding's letter captures the overall reader reaction:

AEG: A look back

"Current evidence that Los Angeles will support a professional football team is overwhelmingly non-existent. The more telling proof is that the once fabulous Rams left town and the Raiders, a pretty decent...