(FORTUNE Magazine) – Matters. In which the present writer yet again puts forward a number of slightly loaded questions unredeemed by any prospect of reasonable answers and additionally burdened by a spiraling word count causing each and every one to uneasily flirt with syntactical disaster: ) Can you be charged with Schadenfreude (''glee at another's misfortune'' -- Webster's New World Dictionary) just for having an emotional uptick upon noting in the Wall Street Journal that the Energy Department seeks to sock Arco for $499 million in relation to charges that this enterprise violated oil price controls in the late Seventies, that being the very era in history when Thornton Bradshaw, then the company's president, was pronouncing 13 to the dozen on the need for business to look beyond the profit motive and assume some social responsibility for a change, while also calling, in FORTUNE, for planning and price controls, although this sentence cannot be allowed to end without noting that the editors distanced themselves from these dirigiste ideas? ) In the category of stories suggesting that the Reagan Revolution is maybe more limited than previously supposed, should we include the news, elaborated the other day in the weekly Science, that the Reagan-appointed head of the National Academy of Sciences has killed a report on nutrition laboriously developed over five years by a panel of serious scholars, the main objection being that the profs proposed to reduce the ''recommended dietary allowance'' for such vitamins as A and C, and the rap on the reduction being that it implied less need for fruits and vegetables in government food programs? ) Given those recent Labor Department data showing industrial deaths and accidents to be again down sharply in prosperous 1983, will the AFL-CIO be man enough to admit that it needs to rework the analysis printed earlier in the FORTUNE letters column (June 11, 1984), wherein the federation's minion for P.R. assailed Keeping Up for having suggested that reduced funding for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration seemed to be quite consistently associated with better safety records? Or has the minion forgotten that his letter, written at a time when the latest available data were for economically depressed 1982, offered that year's high unemployment as the likeliest explanation for the good news on safety? ) Will the New York Times for God's sake stop calling People for the American Way (PAW) ''nonpartisan,'' as it did yet again the other day in reporting on a recent New York City bash for the organization, which was founded by trendy showbiz liberal Norman Lear in 1980 mainly to oppose the policy positions of the Moral Majority? Or is it possible to look nonpartisan while determinedly arguing that Ronald Reagan must not appoint conservative jurists to vacant ! court positions and was also retrogressive in naming opponents of quotas to the Civil Rights Commission, and will PAW explain at some point why it persistently sees a threat to the Constitution in evangelical ministers who link their politics to their faith but discerns no parallel perils in Catholic bishops and other mainstream religious leaders who also thusly link but always turn out to be superliberals?