Quoting a letter from Thrasher, in full:

Joan: Censorship is never the answer. BTW why was my post censored becauseI continue to question Salon's lack of racial inclusion on staff?

I had my reservations about posting on Salon when you started to require letter registration ( I am on the record with a post about my concerns)but I thought this site simply needed and deserved the voice of people of color and alternative activists that are not apologists or the usual liberal pc suspects.

However I continued to post accepting your letter requirement. I felt with regard to my agenda to expand the diversity pool at Salon especially the hiring and inclusion of more Black contribuors and paid staffers at Salon it was worth it. I was stung last week to observe a post I had directed to you Joan regarding this very issue was deleted from the thread!!

In my view this was raw censorship. From my vantage point my concerns about Salon's hiring practices is not the same issue or animal AS a rude, crude, drive-by troll. The deletion of posts which address policy, editorial themes and related content which directly impact readers is very troubling and in truth threatens dialouge and artistic, political and social freedoms.

Joan your intent to revisit your letter policy in my opinion is a waste of time unless you remove all restraints, filters and anything which stops free flowing dialouge. From my quarter as a Black activist even hate speech has value and censorship under whatever cloak or cover is a lethal proposition for media outlets including those on the internet.

Please then return my post for public viewing and comments and remove all of Salon's letter registration filters.

Keeping hope alive...

Is this true? If it is, I would like to state that this is exactly the sort of moderation - deleting letters from those who have a problem with Salon - that bothers me. Even if Thrasher's letter was inappropriate, was it so inappropriate that it had to be deleted, rather than having a spokesman for Salon respond to it?

Okay, I assume Carol Lloyd is trying to play Devil's Advocate here, because the argument about red flags and so on is just plain gross. If the last sentences represent her actual position, my reaction is: ick. Should day care workers be fired if they are worried about an iffy mammogram, if dad just died, if there's a legal squabble with the neighbors over property? Any of these things might distract them and make them less-than-ideal caretakers for a time. Humans have lives, including humans who work with children.

An employer who fires someone for being injured and needing medical leave should be punished, regardless of how the injury occurred.

I've heard of women being fired because of threats from boyfriends before - the most high-profile being Aishwarya Rai, who was dumped from a movie because her boyfriend came to the set to beat her up. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the employers, who after all didn't sign on for the drama. But. The employee should absolutely be protected by law. The fault in these cases lies with the police, who fail to adequately protect the woman and her workplace.

most posts deal with if/when LW should go home to his dying mother or her funeral.

but his guilt is really about why he didn't bother going to see her for the last 7 years, EVEN WHEN HE HAD MONEY. People are using the real issue of poverty to ease his guilt, when he admitted he couldn't be bothered going home WHEN he DID have money. so money, poverty are NOT what's keeping him away from his dying Mom. And that is the REAL issue here. Poverty is a red herring. We don't hate poor people here. I do encourage LW to explore WHY he never could go see his Mom. The issue is WHY he stayed away from his dying Mom for the last 7 years, even when he had plenty of money.

And being vicious to him helps how?

The original letter was ABOUT guilt. He admits he's guilty. He feels he has done something bad. Yes, he probably could have done something to see mom at some point, no matter how poor he was. He didn't, and now she's dead.

Appropriate reaction, to my way of thinking, is not, "You suck and you should suffer forever! In fact, I'll help - come over here and let me hurt you."

We seem to disagree about this.

Cary's letter doesn't say that the letter writer's behavior was flawless; just that people, all people, do bad things, and when there's nothing that can be done to make amends it serves no purpose to dwell on them. The letter writer was probably a less dutiful child than most people here. That's the point. Was the letter writer a demon? Does he deserve to be shunned by human society for his wickedness? I don't think so. In the grand scheme of things, blowing off your mother is far from the worst thing a person can do.