> He's a face -- a surface-level handsome one

I hear this all the time, but must admit to never seeing it. He kinda reminds me of Don Knotts.

Can I help it if people excitedly watching and then deconstructing television ads reminds me of scenes in Tony Richardson's magisterial version of Evelyn Waugh's THE LOVED ONE -- wherein the mind-numbingly obese Mrs. Joyboy lounges in bed and gnaws on entire pigs while watching her favorite food commercials? If memory serves, she calls the ads "my programs" and damn near has orgasms whenever they flicker across her television screen.

Leave it to a Brit to capture America in a nutshell.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DaGtDJo5R5o

> How very nice for you.

Well, it does beat spending hours watching ads occasionally punctuated by the odd play of a football match, the outcome of which was never in doubt....

> I guess the question boils down to what we believe the goal of parenting is. Should we try to intimidate our kids into behaving out of fear for what will happen if they misbehave?

You mean, like in religion?

I read a book last evening.

> The communitarianism that Christ preached was mutual

> sharing in an atmosphere of love and human connectedness.

Um, Rob, if he did preach this -- and according to the Bible he did -- then why aren't you and other Christians actually living this way? Come on. Sell off all your property (to non believers, presumably, without which the system wouldn't work), give it all to the poor and move into the commune.

> Communism is a socio-political and economic ideology

> that DEMANDS that those who have give up what they

> have to those who do not on pain of death.

> Just a slight difference, don't you think?

Nope. Past behavior suggests that if Christians actually did live under those circumstances (and they have), anyone who didn't toe the line would be burned at the stake.

> There is a difference between the communitarianism that

> Jesus preached and Communism, and I suspect you know

> that you back-bench bomb-thrower.

No, I don't know that. Please explain, Rob, since you seem to be able to expound at length on virtually everything. Better living through Wikipedia?

It's amazing how people vehemently follow the bible word for word save for the passages that they don't like.

For instance, their blood lust rises and their pupils dilate and they foam at the mouth over the book's homophobic passages.

But when they see that Christ says the rich go to hell, they get the WiteOut.

> Why don't you go soak your head while we adults have a nice conversation.

That's about the least adult thing one could say, Rob.

But as an atheist, I forgive you.

How convenient is it that a great many Xians forget Acts 4:32-35, the logical end to Christ's camel-through-the-eye-of-the-needle mantra?

Yes, folks, Christ was a Commie!!!!

[32] And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

[33] And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made *unto every man according as he had need.*

[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

* Sound familiar?

> Forget Hollywood - stick to indie, BBC, stage, etc. to show us your true talent.

Indeed. Unlike Alan Swann, Everett is an actor, not a movie star -- and an excellent actor at that. (There is a marked difference between the two creatures.) With the exception of a badly conceived turn at Sherlock Holmes for the BBC, he has little to be ashamed of on his resume.

On further reflection last evening, I came to the conclusion that it's only nice to have an unlimited howling section if you have unlimited time to read said howling.

I certainly don't have time, and that's why I still appreciate the sampling of well-written letters (and opinions) in the print magazines and newspapers. Salon would be wise to do same, i.e., present a sampling of the best responses from Mr. and Mrs. Sixpack and leave it at that.

Failing the actual imposition of an editorial hand, I will probably let my subscription lapse. I haven't time to pull the wheat from the chaff and, frankly, neither should anyone else if they work for a living and have a life outside of work.

"The people are to be taken in very small doses." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

I wonder how many hours are lost every day because people are spending their work hours posting letters to Salon rather than getting their actual work done.

This letters section has got to be a disaster if we consider all the lost business it engenders.

[I just lost five minutes of my lunch break writing this missive.]

Yes, please moderate the letters. Release only the ones that merit releasing, like in a print publication.

The problem with unending letters is similar to standing in Times Square and seeing all the lighted signs. There are so many of them competing for your attention that you don't end up seeing any of them.

Failing moderation, perhaps require everyone who posts to use their real name and address (again, as in a print publication). I guarantee the letters will be more thoughtful and the trolls will disappear back into the woodwork of their parents' basements.