I write to you with trepidation, for I'm afraid that some of the what-about-me(n) horde might believe that I'm about to vote for their latest warmongering, draft-dodging candidate and that I might date them too, but with all due understanding of the peril, I share that your adoration of women is as off-putting as brightstar's unironic insistence that women rule the world. I once knew a guy who preferred women, forever and always, and had no male friends, whatever his counter-assertions. And when you tip towards one gender, you get the craziness of an unbroken line of penis-sporting presidents, albeit on a personal level. I sometimes think of you as a cheerleader for the female gender and I sometimes think of you as a female gender sycophant and I always think you mean well, but, well, focusing on Hillary's hotness or Ms. Clark-Flory's hotness moves you into the realm of yet another who embodies what you deride.

"You obviously have only your and generally female interests in mind (no male interests whatsoever)."

Well, duh. Who doesn't? Anyone who asserts that they're altruistic is either deluded or a liar.

Unless you like androgyny and some guys do.

And I think that the blond beauty that Hugh Hefner prefers is bland.

Moxie is also sexy. As is courage. And self-control.

And the billions (trillions?) that we're borrowing to occupy Iraq could buy a lot of solar powered desalination plants, but shock and awe is way more fun than sliding the salt out of water.

For example, if you really, really love a child, you might say, "You're so yummy I could just eat you up!"

And then you might mimic that eating, with lots of slurping and gnawing sounds around the child's belly.

And in a way, we do consume each other, albeit socially, for day by day, we do take bites out of each other's lives, resources, and time.

The turkey in a bikini is creepy. Prickling about the banal poetry is silly: that's indignation gone wild.

The histrionics of I-post-anonymously-'cause-I'm-American-hero had me blushing for Anonymous, since he doesn't have the decency to blush for himself.

And Candypants is right about a cybertrail. If one leaves no footprints, one is more likely to leave turds.

Hey, I'm going to try posting anonymously and see if it corrodes my decency. Here goes:

EVERYONE IS STUPID.

----ANONYMOUS

It did! It did! It did corrode my decency!!

Ronnie Reagan was one of the attackers. He divorced his first wife and "married" his mistress, Nancy. Why they weren't stoned, as the inerrant word of God instructs true believers to do, I'll never know.

...a cybertrail. If one wanted, one could click on my name and see the complex history of my posts. As Brightstar so graciously noted a couple days ago, there have been times when I agree with the guys and find fault in mainstream feminist positions. At the other pole, there are the many times when I poked anti-Broadsheet-boys with, "What about me(n)?!" Via the body of my words, one's Crapometer could have sufficient data to assess my full-of-shitiness. Anonymous, one can't do this to you. You don't stand behind your words. I'm full of crap, but at least I stand beside my crap (and have the good sense to pinch my nose when I do).

You wrote: "it's bizarre when you misrepresent arguments and smear others through the use of ad hominem by saying they hate women when you have not posted a single quote that begins to demonstrate your point."

How can anyone do post "a single quote"? You don't stand behind your words.

"I think for whatever reason we're not understanding each other, perhaps you or I have had a bit too much nog."

Too much nog? I wish, but now that you've suggested it, I might make a quick trip to the store!

"I can only conclude that the Salon moderators don't LIKE civilized discourse."

I might have told this story already, but...when I got my first national mag cover story, it generated scores of letters from readers and the editor elected to publish the...cancel-my-subscription-the-writer-is-a-sicko one. She had me reply, of course, to amplify the drama and I realized that media folks don't just follow the if-it-bleeds-it-leads axiom: they'll pick at a scab if that scab starts to stanch the bleeding.

Jerry Springer's audience chants, "Jer-ry, Jer-ry, Jer-ry!"

But Salon's audience also chants, albeit with all due middle class demureness, "Joan-ie, Joan-ie, Joan-ie!"

As you note, Allie, there are policies that permit conflict.

you're the best.

And "Oh, Canada," too!

...Candypants's intellect and civility. And yes, yes, I went to Sacks's website and read some of his articles and skimmed the streams of self-aggrandizing this-person-said-this-about-me and I-said-this-about-that! I saw more bloating and inertia than a dead whale on a July beach.

Nice analysis, C-Bob. I have a hard time differentiating the anonymice.

I especially like this: "And yes, I really don't understand Salon's moderation policies. Maybe they are trying to encourage clickthroughs or something. Deleting a silly user-name while letting posts that approximate stalking and hate-crime stand? I just don't get it."

I worry that the Broadsheet staff believe that their readership will drop if they reduce the verbal violence. I gave up a national Internet column of 1.4 million unique daily hits because I tired of the anonyattacks. I tire of them here too, but I just vacate for a few days/weeks/months whenever I do.

Back at ya, LaurieNY!