PECULIAR PRIORITIES

I find it unconscionable that, after giving prominent display to protests by Mitch Snyder and others {"Homeless Activists March Here," Metro, Nov. 8} , you relegate President Reagan's signing of a $1.2 billion program for the homeless to a one-column, three-paragraph article buried on a page of ads {"Reagan Signs Bill to Aid Homeless," Nov. 9} . Even more maddening, next to that article, you put a photo of a demonstrator protesting the Reagan administration's housing cuts. (I also find it curious that you give an article about women in Mississippi who eat dirt at least four times the space you gave to the Reagan bill.)

What are your priorities anyway? Isn't this legislation what homeless advocates have been asking for? I think President Reagan, as well as those who worked to get this bill passed, deserve more credit than you see fit to give them. How can you call yourself an independent newspaper when you report news as selectively as you do?

-- Marie Jeffery A Miss Is as Good as a Smile In his Nov. 5 crossword puzzle, Harold B. Counts used the expression "all wool and a yard wide." Unfortunately, the correct expression is "all blue and a yard wide."

If this expression puzzles him, he can turn to the dictionary to learn that, in the wool industry, "blue" designates "the long wool from the neck of a sheep, etc., which is the best quality."

Although Harold B. only missed by a neck, he should be reminded that close Counts only at horse shows. On the other hand, it may be that you can't teach an old dog new tracks. -- William Jensen Spare Us the Convoluted Synax I have noticed you often use triple and quadruple negatives in covering Supreme Court rulings (over-rulings and over-over-rulings).

And this choice bit of syntax appeared in a recent edition: "rejected an appeal by Kansas officials challenging a state law allowing ... " You'd need a degree in logic and five extra minutes to decipher that one. Simplicity is the first priority in writing. Please, why not "upheld a Kansas law allowing ... ?"

-- Thomas P. O'Brien You've Become Unbalanced I just canceled my Post subscription for two reasons: You have become too hawkish for my tastes (your main reason for not supporting Michael Dukakis), and most of your contributing opinion-makers are conservatives.

It seems to me that you once had a balance of liberal and conservative views on the editorial pages. Now, writers such as George Will and Jeane Kirkpatrick are frequent contributors, but the voices of their counterparts are absent.

Why should I have to subscribe to The Nation to get a liberal perspective on the issues? You are not alone in this -- TV shows such as "Inside Washington" and "The McLaughlin Group" are also biased to the right, which is now regarded as centrist as no other viewpoints are being heard. No wonder the "L word" is an unmentionable. -- Annette D. Loukas Monumental Oversight What have you done with the Old Post Office Pavilion? The map on the front of the Nov. 4 Business section shows buildings of lesser prominence, but not this Romanesque folly. This is no mean feat, since it is exceeded in height only by the Washington Monument. And it is the only mixed-use building owned and operated by the federal government.

Where have you been for the last five years? Deaf to the Ditchley bells? Unmoved by the atrium elevator? Undistracted by the novelties in the specialty shops? Impervious to the gastronomic delights of sundry restaurants and fast-food services? I suggest you send a reporter and a photographer to check it out. Believe me, you're missing something big.

-- Harold C. Cannon Let Kinsley Eat Quiche Michael Kinsley's shameless arrogance regarding the election outcome never ceases to amaze me {"Spare Us the Deeper Meaning," op-ed, Nov. 10} .

"Michael Dukakis' very respectable 46 percent to 54 percent finish against George Bush ... ought to spare us a lot of heavy theorizing about the deeper meaning of his defeat," he writes, giving new meaning to spin control. Michael Dukakis lost, period. The people have spoken, period. George Bush is our next president, period.

Kinsley is just pontificating when he blathers on about how "Bush ought to keep in mind that almost half his constituents -- as he himself chose to characterize their vote -- apparently love the thought of murderers frolicking in the streets, oppose the Pledge of Allegiance (if not the flag itself), want a weak America and are dying to pay more taxes. Read their lips."

Cute, Kinsley.

Why not just wish the man luck and try supporting him instead of attacking him with sarcasm, pessimism and cynicism? Accept that American voters just might have a mind of their own and voted accordingly.

Go back to eating quiche, Kinsley, and spare us your sour grapes.

-- Steve Bochan

Articles appear as they were originally printed in The Washington Post and may not include subsequent corrections.