On the boards I read, the nastiest comments aren't left by people who don't use a consistent screenname. In other words, there may be an anonymity problem, but that problem has more to do with the fact that somebody can go by, e.g., "My Man Godfrey" instead of . . . (nervous laugh)

I like the changes you guys have made -- including the ability to track back to other letters -- but wouldn't go any farther.

I do wish that certain posters would go away -- or, in the alternative, that the Salonosphere would just ignore these pests once and for all . . . but I also think it's a good idea for Salon to demonstrate a strong respect for freedom of speech, even offensive speech. Of course, Salon has the legal right to screen and cherry-pick letters, but it wouldn't be appropriate to the site's overall ethic.

Finally, to Joan and whomever else: I'm sorry if I've ever been one of those "abusive posters" you're talking about. Salon is one of tho sites I tend to read (and, in a limited way, participate in) when I'm fired up; it doesn't put me in a passive frame of mind, and I'm sure I've put up my fair share of testy remarks.

It's easy to wring one's hands about the illiteracy and stupidity of the commenters on sites like these, but the truth is, Salon's commenters really are much better, on average, than those on many other sites. I enjoy reading Salon readers' responses far more often than they make me cringe.

It's pretty ballsy of Klein to write a defensive post mischaracterizing all of Glenn's arguments without including a link to Glenn's original piece . . . or even explicitly acknowledging what he's responding to.

It really does seem like these people are afraid of Glenn -- that they're worried about what might happen if their readers get a hold of what he's actually writing. Who would have thought a Salon blogger could do so much to rattle these guys? Just as it amuses/nauseates me to hear powerful evangelical Christians wringing their hands about "anti-Christian prejudice," it's a little odd to find political-establishment Goliaths like the editors of Time and the Washington Post moaning about the way that mean ol' Glenn Greenwald is bullying them again.

I guess truth really is an effective weapon in "asymmetrical warfare."

By the way: how weird is it that Joe Klein doesn't seem to understand what irony is? Like, he sincerely doesn't seem to get the difference between being labeled an "incrementalist" on health care -- an unflattering but basically descriptive label (think: "pro-life" vs. "anti-abortion") -- and being called "Serious" by Glenn Greenwald. It should be clear to any literate reader that Glenn's using "Serious" in the same way that someone might, on a cold and rainy day, say: "Great weather we're having today." And Glenn even capitalized "Serious." Perhaps ironic remarks should appear in a special font, for readers who have trouble identifying it. I nominate "Papyrus."

My name calling says the same thing that your original post said: that you're a dick.

Your grade-school goody-goody shtick -- implying that you're shocked and disappointed by my naughty language (and that it's really sad and unfortunate that I've revealed my lack of tact and dignity) -- says it a third time.

Sometimes, there isn't a nicer way to put it. In this case, I think it needed to be said, if only to make you pipe down -- or express yourself politely -- the next time Farhad Manjoo doesn't structure a blog post in a way that you approve of.

I get depressed sometimes when I'm surfing the Internet -- even sites like Salon -- and find that guys like you are dominating the discussion: being petty, mean, snarky, childish, and insulting to no purpose. It doesn't surprise me that you can't take your own medicine -- that you revert to this insufferable Pollyanna mode ("your naughty names say more about you than they do about me") when somebody calls you to the carpet. Your nasty little comment to Farhad -- not my R-rated epithet -- is what poisoned the air in here. ("Ask Conason for help." So insulting.)

You'll be handled with kid gloves when you can address others respectfully; until then, I think people are entitled -- and even obligated -- to be blunt with you.

Thanks for helping me out with the definition -- but I don't need an editor either.

And yes, I am calling you a dick. Your comment to Farhad was disrespectful and condescending. It was also pretty daft; you seem to think it goes without saying that any deviation from the formulas perfected by hack business writers for major-market magazines and newspapers is "incorrect." When I want by-the-numbers tech coverage or prefab business writing, I'll look elsewhere. This is a blog; the "rules" are different. In fact, the rules are whatever the hell the blogger wants them to be. If you don't like the way Farhad Manjoo writes, there are certainly dozens -- hundreds! -- of other places for you to get your PS3 and iPhone gossip. As an occasional reader of Kotaku and Gizmodo, I can tell you that Farhad's prose is much livelier, more readable, and even -- ! -- better-organized than most gadget blogs.

Smugly telling a blogger to "seek help" -- or giving him free J101 classes ("see, this is where you put the lead . . .") -- doesn't make you seem savvy or knowledgeable. It makes you seem like a narcissistic, insecure piss-ant.

But hey, I'm just trying to help you out here.