check just about any message board on the internet, and you'll find there's a word for people like rebecca traister: troll.

wikipeida defines a troll as " person who posts inflammatory messages on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants."

i hope the editors at salon aren't looking at the number of letters that come in response to her posts to determine that she's generating interest in the site and is of value. she doesn't and she's not.

it's obvious that ms. traister is skilled with words and quite intelligent, but if she keeps writing ordurous blog posts and articles like this, she's going to drag the quality of the entire site down.

it's official: the bush admin has reached the level of unconscious self-parody.

the only reason it's not hilarious is the fact that they're destroying the country and the world as they engage in their zany antics.

i'm a little disturbed by the tactics of some (but certainly not all) of those who support/agree with traister. you seem to be using some of the same smear tactics the rovian republicans use: everybody who disagrees with you, traister, and the points in her article is a "whining male" and/or a "misogynist." you seem to totally ignore the females who also take exception to traister's tracts.

similarly, everyone who disagrees with the bush administration is a "whining liberal," never mind that some of the harshest critics come from within the republican party.

once you apply labels to those you disagree with, there's no need to elucidate on your own arguments or deconstruct theirs: the label kills any further discourse.

i'm unable to see how this helps us move towards a goal of equality for all citizens.

i don't know what's up with "a women," but the fact remains that ms. traister did misrepresent the article, in the typical broadsheet rush to snark.

there's nothing about balloon fetishes or mute submissives in the article, and the actions the author recommends are not "tricks," they're attempts to compromise or make at least some sort of offering to the woman who's bothered by her partner's viewing of porn. who knows -- the actions recommended by columnsit might actually start a healthy dialogue. i've seen similar advice from dan savage and other sex columnists.

please, broadsheet, stop with the snark and do some actual reporting.

"Part of the reason why Iraq is a mess right now is because those who opposed the war presented arguments such as you are advancing right now that showed a lack of military understanding and when such scenarios did not occur, and it was obvious that they wouldn't, the self absorbed lunatics in this administration took that as "Look, see we were right all along."

no.

*the* reason why Iraq is a mess right now is because those who favored the war presented arguments that showed a lack of military understanding and when the rosy scenarios they described did not occur, and it was obvious that they wouldn't, the self-absorbed lunatics in the administration and their parrorts/drones in the american mainstream media kept saying "we're turning a corner" "the insurgency is its last throes!" "we're building schools!" "look -- they have purple fingers, freedom is reigning!" and when those who opposed the war said "look, see we were right along," we were accused of *wanting* the u.s. to fail and *wanting* to see americans and innocent iraqis die and suffer.

those of us who opposed the war and our arguments have sweet feck all to do with the current state of things in iraq.

Having read the article several times now, I am strongly of the opinion that Salon's response to reader reaction is lame, lame, lame.

It's true that the article is for the most part positive; this is why the "strange, portly man" part of it stands out as such a needlessly vicious slam.

It's as if you gave Gore a slice of chocolate cheescake, but there's also a turd on the plate. When people point this out, it seems the Salon staff are effectively saying "We gave Gore a piece of cheesecake, why are you complaining about the turd? What's wrong with you people?!" (or in the "he doesn't have to be faux-objective" letter, it's as if they're saying "Mr. O'Hehir is not a professional chef, so he doesn't have to worry about things like not putting turds in his dishes -- he just serves them as they are."

Shame on you, Salon. This is the kind of thing that makes us consider not renewing our subscriptions.

are you all aware that there's also a restaurant chain called "taco rosa"?

is that also offensive, juvenile, etc. or does it get a free pass b/c it's "ethnic"?