If you Google my real name (which is uncommon enough to identify me uniquely), you will see my "official" bio, a number of professional accomplishments, my published papers and articles... but also dorky debates over science fiction novels, results from intoxicated college foosball tournaments, bitter adolescent political arguments, among evidence of other hobbies. I'm not ashamed of my personal interests and activities, but it's not necessarily something I want to share with strangers or distant acquaintances. And I'm open to the idea that some opinion I hold today may turn out to be idiotic enough that I wouldn't want to be held to it in ten years.

It may seem like a pseudonymous handle, even one you're stuck with, would be sufficient protection of privacy. However, a nickname that seems safely nondescript today may become intimately tied to your real-world identity tomorrow. After a couple of years of posting to the forums of a certain web site, I was invited to join the staff and write for the front page... under my own name. Suddenly, every offhand comment I had jotted down and personal fact I had disclosed was linked to my name, face and person. And not just on that site: I have used variations on the same handle for years, on numerous different forums including Salon.

Thanks, point well made.

I have been in the same situation: I was hired for a job on the basis of my online persona. Suddenly my online handle was linked to my real name, address, social security number and bank account wiring number.

It's foolish to ignore the fact that for many people, online identities are "real" identities. These are the identities under which people make friends and enemies, share interests, and even conduct business. I'm a little more savvy today than I was at the time I used the same name for every online transaction: I try to keep my internet life compartmentalized. But things said online can stay with you and affect you in ways you never foresaw.

It's the anonymous troll from Broadsheet! Hi, anonymous troll from Broadsheet!

No one is questioning your right to respectfully dissent. However, that's not your game. Your game is to attack other posters, then call them weak or intolerant if they call you out on it.

The funny thing is, I've never been to a site before where it was seriously argued whether "None of the posters here would drink Perrier because they're all obese," should be considered a valuable contribution to the discussion. In every other online forum, the moderators are clearly capable of detecting trolling for what it is and responding to it. What's wrong with Salon?

Yep, thanks for playing the game right out here in public where people can see it and confirm it.

You and I have been over this before, but "troll" is not an ad hominem attack. It's a description of a particular behavior, trolling, which can be confirmed by anyone at Salon who cares to track your IP address.

It's not that his advice is bad; it's that he's a different kind of person than you are, and than I am.

Place is hugely important. When I visit Florida, I love the beaches (especially at night, especially during a phosphorescent tide) but my heart hurts because the insect noises are all wrong. Driving through California drives me crazy. It's just wrong, all of it, the golden fields, the giant redwoods, all those windmills. On the other hand, that first sight of the Tetons is better than sex, and I feel every muscle in my body relax as I drive east through the mountains of Tennessee.

It matters. It fills a deep need. For some of us, it matters more than family. Speaking for myself, family wins out by a nosehair, but you may skew the other way.

See if you can get your family to move West.

to a "gender issues" section. I don't think it would cut down on the misogyny displayed in the comments section on Broadsheet, though. It would just mean that every time there was an article on something about women, the same trolls would say, "Why are you reporting this instead of making every article about [insert pet cause here]."

Cats are very capable of making their wishes known. Your roommate is not hurting your cats and you are (as you know) mentally ill.

So, there's the question of how much respect your roommate owes your insanity. I'm thinking... not very much at all. Insanity isn't something that needs to be respected.

Did your roommate know you were nuts when she agreed to live with you? Have the two of you discussed, frankly, how much she's expected to coddle your nutsiness?

Many women of 47 also want children of their own; they're just, for the most part, SOL.

Here's a thought: ASK on the front end whether or not the man wants children of his own. If the answer is yes, you know it's not going to be a long-term relationship. If the answer is, "Well, I'd like them, but it doesn't look like I'm going to get them," or "I'm not in any hurry," or "Mmmm, I can live without kids," (said while learning forward with a 'please don't make me sleep alone tonight' look in the eyes) you have good reason to suspect it won't be a long term relationship.

And do grow up and stop looking for someone to blame for the way your life has turned out. You made the choice not to find a partner when you were younger; it shouldn't come as a news flash that most men who haven't settled down by the age of 50 prefer women younger than themselves. Why is it selfish for men to put off having kids but not selfish for you to put off getting married?