Yet again, the forum's about Shooter and Tiberius.

Guys, Tiberius is probably a 14-year-old boy.

In any event, the argument that these two commenters are worth responding to (again and again and again) because they represent or reveal something interesting or relevant about Bush or Republicans or America or whatever else . . . is totally exhausted at this point.

Whatever these guys symbolize or represent or stand for, they've now fully symbolized or represented or stood for it, and everybody's had a chance to respond. At this point, their posts, and the smackdowns from everybody else on the message board, are just static.

This much is given: Tiberius will respond to every article Glenn posts. His response will be mean-spirited, sadistic, and vaguely threatening. It will be hypocritical and filled with logical inconsistencies and name-calling. The grammar and punctuation will be poor.

What's left to say?

Honestly, the reason I'm posting this comment is because I get the sense from the daily responses (Glenn's response to Tiberius today is a nice example) that people in the forum are getting genuinely pissed off, genuinely upset, by the pro-torture, pro-authoritarian posts of these two pests.

Of course, the things they're saying are objectively upsetting. On the other hand, it can't be a good idea to let people this unimaginative exert so much influence over your emotional state.

I've spent most of the last six years in a bad mood over politics. My friends and family have too. I've often felt that if other people -- "people on the street" -- were only in a slightly worse mood, I wouldn't have to be in such a bad mood myself. In other words, what's ultimately most depleting, for me, is the moral indifference of my neighbors -- the indifference, for instance, of the students in the college town where I live. The 2006 election has helped cool me off a little (although it's certainly possible to rage at the Democrats' incompetence) . . . but I think I'm also learning how to adapt, which is important, since things are not going to "be right" in this country for a very long time.

To preserve my sanity, I have to be selective about where I direct my outrage. Today, the New York Times seems like a deserving target. (For one thing, I'm squarely in the Times's target market, so my opinion might count for something, assuming thousands of others feel the same way.)

But can I really afford to get fired up about Tiberius's daily pro-torture comment on Glenn Greenwald's blog? Am I going to change Tiberius's mind about anything? Is he going to change my mind about anything? Will I learn anything from his posts? Will he learn anything from mine? Is it possible for me to shame him? Is it possible for him to shame me? Is there any doubt in my mind that 99.9% of the people reading the comments on this board feel more or less the way I do when they read Tiberius's comments? Will my response to Tiberius illustrate anything useful or interesting? If the answer to all of these questions is "no," then why engage, on any level?

The most appropriate response (and the response most likely to discourage the posting of more of these nuisance comments -- comments that aren't designed to foster real dialogue, but are meant merely to inflame) is silence.

That Sony's "viral marketers" are notorious for posting messages on comment boards like these. When I see multiple posters delivering modified versions of Sony's press release (especially when those press releases repeat stale corporate talking points like "Wii is child's play" *), I'm suspicious.

* (By the way, I love the suggestion that video games can -- or should -- be "serious business." Comments like these remind me of those old Pull-ups ads: "Mommy, WOW! I'm a big kid now!")

Let's wait until it's possible to buy a Wii without standing in line before we start trumpeting the miracle comeback of the PS3.

PS: Love the blog, Farhad.